sampling with replacement). For each replicate, the net monetized value
of a one-point decrease in IQ is subsequently estimated as the gross
value of an IQ point, less the value of additional education costs and
lost earnings while in school. EPA uses an IQ point value discounted to
age 7. Based on EPA's reanalysis of Salkever (1995), the mean value of
an IQ point in 2016 dollars, discounted to age 7, is $5,708 using a 7
percent discount rate and $22,503 using a 3 percent discount rate.\2\
See Appendix G, of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a) for a sensitivity
analysis of avoided IQ loss benefits based on Lin et al. (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ It should be noted that these values are slightly different
than those used in other recent rulemaking (e.g., the Lead Dust
Standard and the proposed Perchlorate rule). This is simply due to
the differences in the age of the child when the benefits are
accrued in the analysis. Benefits for the LCRR are accrued at age
seven and therefore the value of an IQ point is discounted back to
age 7 in the LCRR analysis. This results in a slightly higher
estimate than the values used for the Perchlorate Rule and the Lead
Dust Standard, which are discounted to age zero and age three,
respectively. It should also be noted, and is described in Section
6.4.5, that the benefits in the LCRR are further discounted back to
year one of the analysis and annualized within the EPA LCRR cost-
benefit model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA used the estimated changes in lifetime (age 0 to 7) average
blood lead levels that result from changes in LSL, CCT, or POU status
as inputs to the concentration response function from the independent
analysis by Crump et al. (2013). The resultant annual avoided IQ
decrements per change in LSL, CCT, and/or POU status change are then
summed and multiplied by the EPA reanalyzed Salkever (1995) value per
IQ point, which represent a weighted average for males and females (3
or 7 percent depending on the discount rate being used to annualize the
stream of benefits across the period of analysis). This annual stream
of benefits was annualized at 3 and 7 percent over the 35-year period
of analysis, and further discounted to year one of the period of
analysis. See Exhibit 6-19 (discounted at 3 percent) and Exhibit 6-20
(discounted at 7 percent) for the estimated benefit from avoided IQ
losses from both LSL removals and improvements to CCT at public water
system as a result of the previous rule, the LCR revisions, and the
incremental difference between the previous and final rule estimates
under both the low and high cost scenarios.
3. Impacts on Adult Blood Lead Levels
    EPA identified the potential adverse adult health effects
associated with lead utilizing information from the 2013 Integrated
Science Assessment for Lead or EPA ISA (USEPA, 2013) and the HHS
National Toxicology Program Monograph on Health Effects of Low-Level
Lead (National Toxicology Program, 2012). The EPA ISA uses a five-level
hierarchy to classify the weight of evidence for causation based on
epidemiologic and toxicological studies, and the NTP Monograph
conducted a review of the epidemiological literature for the
association between low-level lead exposure (defined by blood lead
levels <10 [micro]g/dL) and select health endpoints, and categorized
their conclusions using a four-level hierarchy. Constraining the
assessment to the highest/most robust two levels from each of the
documents finds that the EPA ISA reports ``causal'' and ``likely to be
causal'', and the NTP Monograph indicates ``sufficient'' and
``limited'' evidence of association between lead and adult adverse
cardiovascular effects (both morbidity and mortality effects), renal
effects, reproductive effects, immunological effects, neurological
effects, and cancer. (See Appendix D of the final rule EA).
    Although EPA did not quantify or monetize the reduction in risk
associated with adult health effects for the LCRR, the Agency has
estimated the potential changes in adult drinking water exposures and
thus blood lead levels to illustrate the extent of the lead reduction
to the adult population estimated as a result of the LCRR. EPA
estimated blood lead levels in adults for each year of life, beginning
at age 20 and ending with age 80. Males and females are assessed
separately because data from the CDC's National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate that men have higher average blood
lead levels than women, thus the baseline from which the changes are
estimated. To estimate the changes in blood lead levels in adults
associated with the rule, EPA selected from a number of available
models a modified version of its Adult Lead Methodology (ALM). The ALM
``uses a simplified representation of lead biokinetics to predict
quasi-steady state blood lead concentrations among adults who have
relatively steady patterns of site exposures'' (USEPA, 2003). The model
assumes a linear slope between lead uptake and blood lead levels, which
is termed the ``biokinetic slope factor'' and is described in more
detail in Chapter 6 section 6.5 of the final rule EA. Although the
model was originally developed to estimate blood lead level impacts
from lead in soil, based on the record, EPA finds the ALM can be
tailored for use in estimating blood lead concentrations in any adult
exposed population and is able to consider other

sources of lead exposure, such as contaminated drinking water. The
biokinetic slope factor of 0.4 [micro]g/dL per [micro]g/day is valid
for use in the case of drinking water since it is in part derived from
studies that measure both adult blood lead levels and concentrations of
lead in drinking water (Pocock et al., 1983; Sherlock et al., 1982).
    EPA estimated expected BLLs for adults with the ALM using the lead
tap water concentration data by LSL, CCT, and POU status derived from
the profile dataset, discussed in section VI.E.1 and shown in Exhibit
6-15 of this preamble. For the background blood lead levels in the
model, EPA used geometric mean blood lead levels for males and females
for each year of life between ages 20 and 80 from NHANES 2011-2016,
which may result in some minor double counting of exposure from
drinking water. Exhibit 6-17 displays the estimated blood lead levels
for adults by each LSL, POU or CCT combination summarized by age groups
(blood lead values for each year of age are used to determine average
BLL). EPA also estimated BLLs using output for other exposure pathways
from SHEDS in the ALM and the All Ages Lead Model, these results are
shown in Appendix G of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a). The All Ages
Lead Model results are not used in the primary analysis because updates
to the model from a recent peer review have not been completed.

      Exhibit 6-17--Estimates of Blood Lead Levels in Adults Associated With Drinking Water Lead Exposures From LSL/CCT or POU Status Combinations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Geometric mean blood lead level ([micro]g/dL) for
                                            Corrosion control                                          specified age group in years from the ALM
       Lead service line status              treatment status                 Sex            -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                20-29     30-39     40-49     50-59     60-69     70-80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSL...................................  None.....................  Males....................      1.87      2.02      2.22      2.42      2.63      2.89
                                                                   Females..................      1.57      1.69      1.89      2.22      2.35      2.52
Partial...............................  None.....................  Males....................      1.31      1.44      1.64      1.84      2.03      2.25
                                                                   Females..................      1.01      1.11      1.31      1.64      1.75      1.88
No LSL................................  None.....................  Males....................      0.87      0.99      1.19      1.39      1.55      1.75
                                                                   Females..................      0.57      0.66      0.86      1.19      1.27      1.38
LSL...................................  Partial..................  Males....................      1.40      1.53      1.73      1.93      2.12      2.35
                                                                   Females..................      1.10      1.20      1.40      1.73      1.84      1.98
Partial...............................  Partial..................  Males....................      1.09      1.22      1.42      1.62      1.80      2.01
                                                                   Females..................      0.79      0.89      1.09      1.42      1.52      1.64
No LSL................................  Partial..................  Males....................      0.87      0.99      1.19      1.39      1.55      1.75
                                                                   Females..................      0.57      0.66      0.86      1.19      1.27      1.38
LSL...................................  Representative...........  Males....................      1.14      1.27      1.47      1.67      1.84      2.06
                                                                   Females..................      0.84      0.94      1.14      1.47      1.56      1.69
Partial...............................  Representative...........  Males....................      0.97      1.10      1.30      1.50      1.67      1.87
                                                                   Females..................      0.67      0.77      0.97      1.30      1.39      1.50
No LSL................................  Representative...........  Males....................      0.87      0.99      1.19      1.39      1.55      1.75
                                                                   Females..................      0.57      0.66      0.86      1.19      1.27      1.38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               POU                                 Males....................      0.87      0.99      1.19      1.39      1.55      1.75
                                                                   Females..................      0.57      0.66      0.86      1.19      1.27      1.38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the analysis of childhood IQ impacts section VI.E.2
of this preamble, the estimated BLLs in Exhibit 6-17 are average adult
annual blood lead levels given the corresponding estimated lead tap
water concentrations resulting from LSL, CCT, and POU status. The LCRR
cost-benefit model, tracks the changes in LSL, CCT and POU status over
time and the percentage of males and females in LSL households for each
water system that are impacted by the changes in LSL, CCT, or POU
status. These exposure histories and the corresponding BLL from the ALM
model are then averaged across adult life spans to obtain a set of
potential average lifetime blood lead levels for representative adults
(average lifetime BLLs for potential exposure scenarios). Exhibit 6-18
shows the estimated changes in average lifetime blood lead levels for
adults that move from the set of initial LSL, CCT, and POU status
combinations to a new status as a result of LSL removal, and/or
installation of CCT or POU. Note that when ``No LSL'' is the beginning
or post-rule state, 0.82 [micro]g/L is the assumed concentration across
all levels of CCT status (none, partial, representative). The extent to
which changes in CCT status make meaningful differences in lead
concentrations for those without LSLs cannot be determined from this
exhibit.

               Exhibit 6-18--Estimated Lifetime Average Blood Lead Change for Adults Moving Between LSL, CCT, and POU Status Combinations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Pre-rule drinking water                                             Post-rule drinking water                          Estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  change in the
                                                                                geometric
                                                                                means of  blood
  Lead conc.                                                           Lead conc.                                                           lead change
 ([micro]g/L)           LSL status                CCT status          ([micro]g/L)          LSL status                CCT status        ----------------
                                                                                Ages 20-80
                                                                                ([micro]g/dL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         18.08  LSL......................  None....................            0.82  No LSL..................  None....................             1.03
         18.08  LSL......................  None....................            5.48  LSL.....................  Representative..........             0.75
         18.08  LSL......................  None....................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             1.03
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
         18.08  LSL......................  None....................            0.82                          POU                                    1.03
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          8.43  Partial..................  None....................            0.82  No LSL..................  None....................             0.46
          8.43  Partial..................  None....................            2.64  Partial.................  Representative..........             0.35

          8.43  Partial..................  None....................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.46
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          8.43  Partial..................  None....................            0.82                          POU                                    0.46
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          0.82  No LSL...................  None....................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.00
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          0.82  No LSL...................  None....................            0.82                          POU                                    0.00
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          9.92  LSL......................  Partial.................            0.82  No LSL..................  Partial.................             0.54
          9.92  LSL......................  Partial.................            5.48  LSL.....................  Representative..........             0.27
          9.92  LSL......................  Partial.................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.54
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          9.92  LSL......................  Partial.................            0.82                          POU                                    0.54
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          4.72  Partial..................  Partial.................            0.82  No LSL..................  Partial.................             0.23
          4.72  Partial..................  Partial.................            2.64  Partial.................  Representative..........             0.12
          4.72  Partial..................  Partial.................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.23
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          4.72  Partial..................  Partial.................            0.82                          POU                                    0.23
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          0.82  No LSL...................  Partial.................            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.00
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          0.82  No LSL...................  Partial.................            0.82                          POU                                    0.00
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          5.48  LSL......................  Representative..........            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.28
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          5.48  LSL......................  Representative..........            0.82                          POU                                    0.28
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          2.64  Partial..................  Representative..........            0.82  No LSL..................  Representative..........             0.11
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          2.64  Partial..................  Representative..........            0.82                          POU                                    0.11
                                                                                ----------------------------------------------------
          0.82  No LSL...................  Representative..........            0.82                          POU                                    0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Total Monetized Benefits
    Exhibits 6-19 and 6-20 show the estimated, monetized national
annualized total benefits, under the low and high cost scenarios, from
avoided child IQ decrements associated with the previous LCR, the LCRR,
and the increment of change between the two, for CCT improvements,
LSLR, and POU device implementation discounted at 3 and 7 percent,
respectively. The potential changes in adult blood lead levels
estimated from changing LSL and CCT status under the LCRR can be found
in section VI.E.3 of this preamble and Chapter 6, section 6.5, of the
final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a). The impact of lead on the risk of
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and reductions in birth weight
are discussed in Appendix J of the final rule EA. It should also be
noted that because of the lack of granularity in the assembled lead
concentration profile data, with regard to CCT status when samples were
collected (see section VI.E.1 of this preamble), the benefits of small
improvements in CCT, like those resulting from the ``find-and-fix''
rule requirements, cannot be quantified in the model. For additional
information on non-quantified benefits see section VI.F.2 of this
preamble.

                            Exhibit 6-19--Summary of Estimated National Annual Monetized Benefits--All PWS at 3% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental    Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Children Impacted (over 35 years).............          29,000         928,000         900,000         704,000       3,210,000       2,506,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to ALE)......             190           3,225           3,035           5,228          17,583          12,355
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to ALE).....      $3,344,000     $56,083,000     $52,739,000     $96,449,000    $318,322,000    $221,873,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to TLE)......               0           3,680           3,680               0          10,463          10,463
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to TLE).....              $0     $64,736,000     $64,736,000              $0    $190,822,000    $190,822,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Mandatory).....             128           2,620           2,492           3,106           8,204           5,097
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Mandatory)....      $2,375,000     $47,525,000     $45,150,000     $61,497,000    $156,772,000     $95,275,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Goal Based)....               0           1,807           1,807               0           3,337           3,337
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Goal Based)...              $0     $32,855,000     $32,855,000              $0     $63,610,000     $63,610,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Customer                      0           1,572           1,572               0           1,677           1,677
 Initiated).............................................
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Customer                    $0     $27,540,000     $27,540,000              $0     $29,198,000     $29,198,000
 Initiated).............................................
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (POU).................               0              17              17               0           2,214           2,214

Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (POU)................              $0        $324,000        $324,000              $0     $44,498,000     $44,498,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Value of IQ Benefits...................      $5,719,000    $229,062,000    $223,344,000    $157,946,000    $803,222,000    $645,276,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Exhibit 6-20--Summary of Estimated National Annual Monetized Benefits--All PWS at 7% Discount Rate
                                                                         [2016$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low cost estimate                              High cost estimate
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental    Previous  LCR    Final  LCRR     Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Children Impacted (over 35 years).............          29,000         928,000         900,000         704,000       3,210,000       2,506,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to ALE)......             190           3,225           3,035           5,228          17,583          12,355
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to ALE).....        $581,000      $9,551,000      $8,971,000     $17,790,000     $57,148,000     $39,358,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (CCT Due to TLE)......               0           3,680           3,680               0          10,463          10,463
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (CCT Due to TLE).....              $0     $11,232,000     $11,232,000              $0     $34,750,000     $34,750,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Mandatory).....             128           2,620           2,492           3,106           8,204           5,097
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Mandatory)....        $451,000      $8,703,000      $8,252,000     $12,707,000     $30,776,000     $18,069,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Goal Based)....               0           1,807           1,807               0           3,337           3,337
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Goal Based)...              $0      $6,039,000      $6,039,000              $0     $12,469,000     $12,469,000
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (LSLR--Customer                      0           1,572           1,572               0           1,677           1,677
 Initiated).............................................
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (LSLR--Customer                    $0      $4,797,000      $4,797,000              $0      $5,038,000      $5,038,000
 Initiated).............................................
Annual IQ Point Decrement Avoided (POU).................               0              17              17               0           2,214           2,214
Annual Value of IQ Impacts Avoided (POU)................              $0         $62,000         $62,000              $0      $9,417,000      $9,417,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Value of IQ Benefits...................      $1,032,000     $40,385,000     $39,353,000     $30,497,000    $149,599,000    $119,102,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Cost-Benefit Comparison

    This section summarizes and describes the numeric relationship
between the monetized incremental costs and benefits of the final LCR
revisions. The section also discusses both the non-monetized costs and
benefits of the rulemaking. Exhibits 6-21 and 6-22 compare the
annualized monetized incremental costs and benefits of the LCRR for the
low and high cost scenarios. Under a 3 percent discount rate, the net
annualized incremental monetized benefits, under the low and high cost
scenarios, range from $49 to $296 million. Under the low and high cost
scenarios and a 7 percent discount rate, the net annualized incremental
monetized benefits range from a negative $148 to negative $273 million.

   Exhibit 6-21--Comparison of Estimated Monetized National Annualized
      Incremental Costs to Benefits of the LCRR at 3% Discount Rate
                                 [2016$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Low cost        High cost
            PWS annual costs                 scenario        scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Incremental Costs............    $160,571,000    $335,481,000
Annualized Incremental Benefits.........     223,344,000     645,276,000
                                         -------------------------------
    Annual Net Benefits.................      62,773,000     309,795,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Exhibit 6-22--Comparison of Estimated Monetized National Annualized
      Incremental Costs to Benefits of the LCRR at 7% Discount Rate
                                 [2016$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Low cost        High cost
            PWS annual costs                 scenario        scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Incremental Costs............    $167,333,000    $372,460,000
Annualized Incremental Benefits.........      39,353,000     119,102,000
                                         -------------------------------
    Annual Net Benefits.................    -127,980,000    -253,358,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Non-Monetized Costs
    The LCRR is expected to result in additional phosphate being added
to drinking water to reduce the amount of lead leaching into water in
the distribution system. EPA's cost model estimated that, nationwide,
the LCRR will result in post WWTP total incremental phosphorus loads to
receiving waterbodies increasing over the period of analysis, under the
low cost and high cost scenarios, by a range of 161,000 to 548,000
pounds fifteen years after promulgation, and increasing under the low
cost and high cost scenarios by a range of 355,000 to 722,000 pounds at
year 35. At the national level, under the high cost scenario, this
additional phosphorous loading to waterbodies is small, less than 0.1
percent of the total phosphorous load deposited annually from all other
anthropogenic sources. However, national average receiving waterbody
load impacts may obscure significant localized ecological impacts.
Impacts, such as eutrophication, may occur in water bodies without
restrictions on phosphate deposits, or in locations with existing
elevated phosphate levels. See Chapter 5, section 5.5 of the final rule
EA (USEPA, 2020a) for additional information.
2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized Benefits
    In addition to the benefits monetized in the final rule analysis
for reductions in lead exposure, there are several other benefits that
are not quantified. The risk of adverse health effects due to lead that
are expected to decrease as a result of the LCRR are summarized in
Appendix D of the final rule EA and are expected to affect both
children and adults. EPA focused its non-quantified impacts assessment
on the endpoints identified using two comprehensive U.S. Government
documents summarizing the recent literature on lead exposure health
impacts. These documents are EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for
Lead (ISA) (USEPA, 2013); and the HHS National Toxicology Program
Monograph on Health Effects of Low-Level Lead (National Toxicology
Program (NTP), 2012). Both of these sources present comprehensive
reviews of the literature on the risk of adverse health effects
associated with lead exposure. EPA summarized those endpoints to which
either EPA ISA or the NTP Lead Monograph assigned one of the top two
tiers of confidence in the relationship between lead exposure and the
risk of adverse health effects. These endpoints include cardiovascular
effects, renal effects, reproductive and developmental effects,
immunological effects, neurological effects, and cancer.
    There are a number of final rule requirements that reduce lead
exposure to both children and adults that EPA could not quantify. The
final rule will require additional lead public education requirements
that target consumers directly, schools and child care facilities,
health agencies, and specifically people living in homes with LSLs.
Increased education will lead to additional averting behavior on the
part of the exposed public, resulting in reductions in the negative
impacts of lead. The rule also will require the development of LSL
inventories and making the location of LSLs publicly accessible. This
will give exposed consumers more information and will provide potential
home buyers this information as well, possibly resulting in additional
LSL removals initiated by homeowners before, during, or following home
sale transactions. The benefits of these additional removals are not
quantified in the analysis of the LCRR. As indicated in section VI.E.4
of this preamble, because of the lack of granularity in the lead tap
water concentration data available to EPA for the regulatory analysis,
the benefits of small improvements in CCT to individuals residing in
homes with LSLs, like those modeled under the ``find-and-fix,'' are not
quantified.
    EPA also did not quantify the benefits of reduced lead exposure to
individuals who reside in homes that do not have LSLs. EPA has
determined that the revised LCR requirements may result in reduced lead
exposure to the occupants of these buildings as a result of improved
monitoring and additional actions to optimize CCT. In the analysis of
the LCRR, the number of non-LSL homes potentially affected by water
systems increasing their corrosion control during the 35-year period of
analysis is 8 million in the low cost scenario and 17 million in the
high cost scenario. These households, while not having an LSL in place,
may still contain leaded plumbing materials, including leaded brass
fixtures, and lead solder. These households could potentially see
reductions in tap water lead concentrations. EPA has assessed the
potential benefits to children of reducing lead water concentrations in
these homes (see Appendix F of the final rule EA) but has determined
that the data are too limited and the uncertainties too significant to
include in the quantified and monetized benefit estimates of this
regulation.
    Additionally, the risk of adverse health effects associated with
copper that are expected to be reduced by the LCRR are summarized in
Appendix E of the final rule EA. These risks include acute
gastrointestinal symptoms, which are the most common adverse effect
observed among adults and children. In sensitive groups, there may be
reductions in chronic hepatic effects, particularly for those with rare
conditions such as Wilson's disease and children pre-disposed to
genetic cirrhosis syndromes. These diseases disrupt copper homeostasis,
leading to excessive accumulation that can be worsened by excessive
copper ingestion (National Research Council, 2000).

G. Other Regulatory Options Considered

    The Office of Management and Budget recommends careful
consideration ``of all appropriate alternatives for the key attributes
or provisions of a rule (Office of Management and Budget, 2003).
Pursuant to this guidance, EPA considered other regulatory options when
developing the final LCRR related to:
     The lead in drinking water sampling program at schools and
licensed child care facilities,
     the lead tap sampling protocol requirements for water
systems with LSLs,
     LSL locational information to be made publicly available,
and
     providing small system flexibility to CWSs that serve a
population of 3,300 or fewer persons.
    Exhibit 6-23 provides a summary of the final LCRR requirements and
other option considered for these four areas.

                      Exhibit 6-23--Summary of Other Options Considered for the Final LCRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Area                                  Final LCRR                     Other option considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead in Drinking Water Sampling        Mandatory program is, one five-year round   Mandatory program:
 Program at Schools and Licensed        of lead sampling:                           20% of schools and
 Child Care Facilities.                 20% of elementary schools and       licensed child care
                                        licensed child care facilities tested       facilities tested annually.
                                        annually.                                   5 samples per
                                        5 samples per school.               school.
                                        2 samples per licensed child care  2 samples per licensed child
                                        facility.                                   care facility.
                                       On request program is implemented for       On request program:
                                        secondary schools, and in elementary        Schools and licensed
                                        schools and child cares following the one   child care facilities would
                                        cycle of mandatory sampling:                be tested on request.
                                        Maximum required sampling under     5 samples per
                                        on request program: 20 percent of schools   school.
                                        and licensed child cares tested annually.   2 samples per
                                        5 samples per elementary and        licensed child care
                                        secondary school.                           facility.
                                        2 samples per licensed child care
                                        facility.
Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for      Systems with LSLs collect 100% of   Systems with LSLs
 Systems with Lead Service Lines        their samples from LSLs sites, if           collect 100% of their
 (LSLs).                                available.                                  samples from LSLs sites, if
                                        Samples are fifth liter,            available.
                                        collected after 6-hour minimum stagnation   Samples are first
                                        time.                                       liter, collected after 6-
                                                                                hour minimum stagnation
                                                                                time.
Publicly Available LSL Locational      Systems report a location identifier        Systems report the exact
 Information.                           (e.g., street, intersection, landmark)      street address of LSLs.
                                        for LSLs.
Small System Flexibility.............  CWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer persons,    CWSs that serve 3,300 or
                                        and all NTNCWSs, are provided compliance    fewer persons, and all
                                        flexibility when they exceed the AL.        NTNCWSs, are provided
                                                                                compliance flexibility when
                                                                                they exceed the AL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Lead Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care
Facilities
    The final LCRR requires that all elementary schools and child care
facilities must be sampled by CWSs once during an initial five year
mandatory sampling period (schools and child care facilities may refuse
the sampling, but the water system must document this refusal or non-
response to the state). The CWS must also provide the facility with the
3Ts Toolkit. After this one cycle, or five years, of mandatory
sampling, CWSs must provide sampling and public education though the
3Ts, on request, to all elementary school and child care facilities in
their service area into the future. The final LCRR also requires CWSs
to provide on request sampling to all secondary schools receiving water
from their distribution system. EPA assumed that 5 percent of
elementary and secondary schools, and child care facilities would
request sampling per year under the on request sampling program. In
developing the final rule requirements, EPA assessed two other
alternatives. The first was requiring that all CWSs conduct a mandatory
sampling and public education program for schools and licensed child
care facilities that they serve. The attributes of the mandatory
program are consistent with the final LCRR's requirements for the five-
year round of monitoring at elementary schools and child care
facilities, except this program continues with consecutive five-year
monitoring rounds in perpetuity at all schools and child care
facilities. The second alternative EPA considered was a purely on
request program. This program would limit sampling to K-12 schools or
child care facilities served by the water system that request sampling.
The on request program is representative of the final rule sampling and
public education requirements for secondary schools, and elementary
schools and child care facilities after the cycle of mandatory testing.
This alternative program, however, would begin on request sampling as
part of the initial implementation of the school and child care testing
program at all schools and child care facilities. In assessing the
costs for the program, EPA maintained the assumption that five percent
of schools and licensed child care facilities per year would elect to
participate in the sampling program and that CWSs would contact each
facility annually to determine its interest in the program in lieu of
developing a sampling schedule for each facility. Exhibit 6-24 shows
that the estimated costs of the final rule requirements are between
those of the perpetual mandatory program and the on request program.
Note that the costs of the final LCRR and on request option are highly
dependent on the percentage of facilities that request to participate
in the sampling program. There is a great degree of uncertainty
regarding the percentage of facilities that will request this sampling
and how this interest may fluctuate over time, indicating a higher
degree of uncertainty in the estimated costs from the final LCRR and
the on request program. The same is true for the unquantified benefits
estimated to result from each alternative.

      Exhibit 6-24--National Annualized Costs for School Sampling Alternatives Considered in the Rulemaking
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Annualized cost at 3% discount  Annualized cost at 7% discount
                                                               rate                            rate
                     Option                      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Low cost        High cost       Low cost        High cost
                                                     scenario        scenario        scenario        scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule:
     Elementary Schools/Licensed Child       $12,582,000     $12,960,000     $14,461,000     $14,969,000
     Cares: Mandatory Program for one round of
     monitoring followed by On Request Program..
     Secondary Schools: On Request
     Program.
Proposed LCRR: Mandatory Program................      27,751,000      28,268,000      27,221,000      27,875,000
Other Option Considered: On Request Program.....       9,501,000       9,729,000       9,279,000       9,567,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Lead Tap Sampling Requirements for Water Systems With Lead Service
Lines
    The final LCRR requires that water systems with LSLs collect all
compliance tap samples from sites served by LSLs as opposed to a
minimum of 50 percent as required by the previous rule. As noted in
section III.G of this preamble, tap sample sites served by an LSL are
at the highest risk for elevated lead levels in drinking water,
therefore, EPA revised the tap sample site selection criteria to ensure
water systems with LSLs use those sites for lead tap sampling. The
final rule requires that fifth liter sample be collected and analyzed
at LSL tap sampling sites. EPA determined that a fifth liter tap sample
better captures water that has been in contact with the LSL, and sample
results would result in more protective measures. The sampling
methodology associated with collecting a fifth liter sample (using five
one-liter bottles returning the first, for copper analysis, and the
fifth, for lead analysis) is more complicated and may introduce error,
such as misidentifying the correct liter to be analyzed. Thus, EPA also
considered requiring the collection of a first liter sample,
essentially retaining the sampling procedure from the 1991 LCR because
the first draw approach has been effectively implemented by water
systems.
    Exhibits 6-25 and 6-26 provide the national annualized rule costs
and benefits, under the low cost scenario, discounted at 3 and 7
percent, for the previous rule, the final LCRR, and the first liter
option. Exhibits 6-27 and 6-28 provide the high cost scenario national
annualized rule costs and benefits at the 3 and 7 percent discount
rates. At a 3 percent discount rate, EPA estimates lower total
benefits, based on estimated avoided IQ point decrements, under the
first liter option ($121 to $699 million) compared to the final LCRR
($229 to $803 million). The first liter option provides greater
benefits than the previous rule ($6 to $158 million). EPA estimates
that the total cost of the rule will be lower under the first liter
option ($521 to $756 million) compared to the final LCRR ($554 to $808
million) but still greater than the previous rule ($394 to 473
million). The lower cost and benefit of the first liter option,
compared to the fifth liter final rule requirement, is primarily the
result of fewer water systems with LSLs exceeding the trigger and
action levels and being required to conduct additional tap sampling and
treatment requirements in the EPA cost-benefit model. In addition to
lower quantified benefits, the first liter option is expected to result
in lower unquantified benefits than the fifth liter option as the
overall expected reductions in exposure to lead in drinking water would
be less.
    At a 7 percent discount rate, EPA estimates lower total benefits,
based on estimated IQ point decrements, under the first liter option
($21 to $131 million) compared to the final LCRR ($40 to $150 million).
Benefits of the first liter option are higher than the previous rule
($1 to $30 million). EPA estimates that the total cost of the rule will
be lower under the first liter option ($502 to $780 million) compared
to the final LCRR ($539 to $839 million) but greater than the previous
rule ($371 to $467 million). Again, fewer water systems under the first
liter option are required to conduct additional tap sampling and
treatment requirements in response to trigger and action level
exceedances producing lower costs and benefits as compared to the fifth
liter requirement. And, the fifth liter option is expected to result in
higher unquantified benefits resulting from greater reductions exposure
to lead in drinking water.

  Exhibit 6-25--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs and Benefits for the Low Cost Scenario at 3% Discount
                             Rate Previous Rule, Final LCRR, and First Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Final LCRR                  First liter option
      Benefit/cost category        Previous LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $393,904,000    $554,475,000    $160,571,000    $520,724,000    $126,819,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     387,417,000     519,210,000     131,792,000     489,058,000     101,641,000
Total Annual Benefits...........       5,719,000     229,062,000     223,344,000     120,792,000     116,828,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Exhibit 6-26--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs and Benefits for the Low Cost Scenario at 7% Discount
                                Rate Previous Rule, LCRR, and First Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Final LCRR                  First liter option
      Benefit/cost category        Previous LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $371,188,000    $538,521,000    $167,333,000    $502,337,000    $131,149,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     364,711,000     501,316,000     136,605,000     469,123,000     104,412,000
Total Annual Benefits...........       1,032,000      40,385,000      39,353,000      21,059,000      20,353,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Exhibit 6-27--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs and Benefits for the High Cost Scenario at 3% Discount
                             Rate Previous Rule, Final LCRR, and First Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Final LCRR                  First liter option
      Benefit/cost category        Previous LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $472,821,000    $808,301,000    $335,481,000    $756,384,000    $283,609,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     459,523,000     758,343,000     298,820,000     699,766,000     241,286,000
Total Annual Benefits...........     157,946,000     803,222,000     645,276,000     699,463,000     566,338,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Exhibit 6-28--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs and Benefits for the High Cost Scenario at 7% Discount
                             Rate Previous Rule, Final LCRR, and First Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Final LCRR                  First liter option
      Benefit/cost category        Previous LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $466,523,000    $838,983,000    $372,460,000    $780,202,000    $313,725,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     450,316,000     781,224,000     330,908,000     713,442,000     261,177,000
Total Annual Benefits...........      30,497,000     149,599,000     119,102,000     131,155,000     105,772,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Reporting of LSL-Related Information
    EPA is requiring in the final LCRR that water systems make their
inventory publicly available and systems with LSLs must include a
locational identifier associated with each LSL. EPA is not requiring
that address-level information be provided (see section III.C.3 of this
preamble). Public disclosure of the LSL inventory would increase
transparency and consumer awareness of the extent of LSLs in the
distribution system. EPA, during the development of the final rule,
considered an additional option in which systems with LSLs would be
required to make the address associated with each LSL publicly
available. Available information indicates that prospective buyers and
renters value reductions in risks associated with LSLs. Public
disclosure of LSL locations can create an incentive, through increased
property values or home sale incentives, to replace LSLs.
    EPA anticipates that the costs between the final rule requirement
and this option would be similar because the system would use the same
method for publicly providing and maintaining information regarding its
LSL information and LSL locational information, e.g., posting
information to the water system's website. EPA anticipates the benefits
between the address-level option and location identifier rule
requirement would be similar. EPA expects that unquantified benefits of
the address-level option may be higher due to the potential impacts on
real estate transactions, although this is uncertain.
4. Small System Flexibility
    As discussed in section III.E of this preamble, the final LCRR
includes significant flexibility for CWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer
persons, and all NTNCWSs. If these PWSs have an action level
exceedance, they can choose from four options to reduce the
concentration of lead in their water. The first three options which are
modeled in the cost-benefit analysis are: (1) Replace seven percent of
their baseline number of LSLs per year until all LSLs are replaced; (2)
optimize existing CCT or install new CCT; (3) Provide POU devices to
all customers. The LCRR provides a fourth option (not modeled), for
CWSs and NTNCWSs that do not have LSLs and have control of all of the
plumbing materials in their system. PWSs meeting these criteria may
choose to replace all lead bearing plumbing on a schedule specified by
the state and not to exceed one year. This additional option will give
small entities more flexibility but because of the requirement that a
system must have control of all plumbing materials it is unlikely large
numbers of PWSs would select this compliance alternative. EPA,
therefore, does not model this option in the cost analysis.
    As part of the development of the final rule EPA also considered
limiting small system flexibility to CWSs that serve 3,300 or fewer
people and all NTNCWSs. Exhibits 6-29 and 6-30 provide the range of the
estimated incremental annualized rule costs and benefits, under both
the low and high cost scenarios, for the final LCRR and the alternative
small system flexibility threshold option at a 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rate, respectively.

   Exhibit 6-29--Estimated National Annualized Incremental Rule Costs and Benefits at 3% Discount Rate for the
         Final LCRR and the Alternative Small System Flexibility Threshold Considered in the Rulemaking
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Final LCRR: Small system     Small system flexibility: CWSs
                                                   flexibility for CWSs serving     serving <= 3,300 people and
                                                     <= 10,000 people and all               all NTNCWSs
              Benefit/cost category                           NTNCWSs            -------------------------------
                                                 --------------------------------
                                                     Low cost        High cost       Low cost        High cost
                                                     scenario        scenario        scenario        scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........................    $160,571,000    $335,481,000    $163,460,000    $363,607,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........................     131,792,000     298,820,000     134,013,000     322,711,000
Total Annual Benefits...........................     223,344,000     645,276,000     226,970,000     675,533,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exhibit 6-30--National Annualized Incremental Rule Costs and Benefits at 7% Discount Rate for the Final LCRR and
                 the Alternative Small System Flexibility Threshold Considered in the Rulemaking
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Final LCRR: Small system     Small system flexibility: CWSs
                                                   flexibility for CWSs serving     serving <= 3,300 people and
                                                     <= 10,000 people and all               all NTNCWSs
              Benefit/cost category                           NTNCWSs            -------------------------------
                                                 --------------------------------
                                                     Low cost        High cost       Low cost        High cost
                                                     scenario        scenario        scenario        scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........................    $167,333,000    $372,460,000    $170,418,000    $408,500,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........................     136,605,000     330,908,000     138,993,000     361,732,000
Total Annual Benefits...........................      39,353,000     119,102,000      40,038,000     125,285,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Any changes made during interagency review in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this
action. This analysis, the Economic Analysis of the Final Lead and
Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a), is available in the docket and is
summarized in section VI of this preamble.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Cost

    This action is an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action. Details
on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found in EPA's
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this
action summarized in section VI.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (From the Office of Mission Support's
Information Collection Request Center) (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned
the control number 2040-0297. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300), and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The burden reflects the time needed to conduct state and public
water system information collections and recordkeeping during the first
three years after promulgation, as described in Chapter 8 from the
Economic Analysis of the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA,
2020a).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by people to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology, and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The PRA requires EPA to estimate the burden for public water
systems and primacy agencies to comply with the final rule. EPA assumes
there is one response per respondent per requirement. EPA anticipates
public water systems will be involved in several implementation
activities for the first three years after publication of the final
LCRR. During the implementation period, one of the burdens that public
water systems will incur is the burden to read and understand the LCRR.
EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent to
read and understand the LCRR to be 4 hours. Another burden public water
systems will incur is the burden of assigning personnel and devoting
resources necessary to carry out the implementation of the final rule.
EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent to
assign personnel and devote resources to be 8 hours. In addition,
public water systems will need to participate in training sessions and
receive technical assistance from their state during implementation of
the LCRR. EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per
respondent to conduct training and receive technical assistance to be 8
hours. Furthermore, public water systems will have to develop an LSL
inventory or submit a demonstration to

the state that they do not have LSLs. EPA estimates the average burden
hours per response per respondent to develop an LSL inventory to be 20
to 400 hours. EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per
respondent to submit a demonstration of no LSLs to be 5 to 40 hours.
Public water system systems will also have to confer with their primacy
agency on initial planning for LSLR and prepare a LSLR plan. EPA
estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent for
initial planning and preparing a LSLR plan to be 12 to 52 hours.
    Likewise, primacy agencies will face burdens due to the
promulgation of the final rule. Primacy agencies will have to adopt the
more stringent portions of the rule and develop programs to implement
the LCRR. Primacy agencies are allowed to implement and develop more
stringent requirements than the LCRR. EPA estimates the average burden
hours per response per respondent to adopt the rule and develop a
program for LCRR to be 1,920 hours. While primacy agencies are
implementing the LCRR, there may be a need to modify their data system.
EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent to
modify the data system to implement the LCRR to be 2,220 hours. Also,
primacy agencies will need to provide training and technical assistance
for their internal staff as well as for the staff of public water
systems. EPA estimates the average burden hours per response per
respondent to provide internal primacy agency staff with training for
implementation of the LCRR to be 588 hours. EPA estimates the average
burden hours per response per respondent to train and provide technical
assistance to the staff of public water systems to be 2,400 hours. The
primacy agencies are also responsible for assisting public water
systems in developing an LSL inventory and reviewing submissions. EPA
estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent to
assist with developing a LSL inventory and review submissions to be 4
to 8 hours. In addition, primacy agencies will also have to review
demonstrations of no LSLs from public water systems. EPA estimates the
average burden hours per response per respondent to review
demonstrations to be 2 hours. Primacy agencies will also have to confer
on and review the initial LSLR plan from public water systems. EPA
estimates the average burden hours per response per respondent to
review demonstrations to be 6 to 26 hours.
    The information collected under the ICR is critical to states and
other authorized entities that have been granted primacy (i.e., primary
enforcement authority) for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). These
authorized entities are responsible for overseeing the LCR
implementation by certain public water systems within their
jurisdiction. Primacy agencies would utilize these data to determine
compliance, designate additional treatment controls to be installed,
and establish enforceable operating parameters. The collected
information is also necessary for public water systems. Public water
systems would use these data to demonstrate compliance, assess
treatment options, operate and maintain installed treatment equipment,
and communicate water quality information to consumers served by the
water system. Primacy agencies would also be required to report a
subset of these data to EPA. EPA would utilize the information to
protect public health by ensuring compliance with the LCR, measuring
progress toward meeting the LCR's goals, and evaluating the
appropriateness of state implementation activities. No confidential
information would be collected as a result of this ICR.
    Respondents/affected entities: Data associated with this final ICR
would be collected and maintained at the public water system, and by
Federal and state governments. Respondents would include owners and
operators of public water systems, who must report to their primacy
agency(s).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Under this rule the
respondent's obligation to respond is mandatory. Section 1401(1)(D) of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires that ``criteria and
procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably
complies with such maximum contaminant levels [or treatment techniques
promulgated in lieu of a maximum contaminant level]; including accepted
methods for quality control and testing procedures to insure compliance
with such levels and to insure proper operation and maintenance of the
system . . .'' Furthermore, section 1445(a)(1)(A) of the SDWA requires
that ``[e]very person who is subject to any requirement of this
subchapter or who is a grantee, shall establish and maintain such
records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and provide such
information as the Administrator may reasonably require by regulation
to assist the Administrator in establishing regulations under this
subchapter, in determining whether such person has acted or is acting
in compliance with this subchapter . . .'' In addition, section
1413(a)(3) of the SDWA requires states to ``keep such records and make
such reports . . . as the Administrator may require by regulation.''
    Estimated number of respondents: The total number of respondents
for the ICR would be 67,712. The total reflects 56 primacy agencies and
67,656 public water systems.
    Frequency of Response: During the initial three year period, public
water systems will conduct one-time startup activities. The one-time
burden associated with reading and understanding the rule, assigning
personnel and resources, and attending training is estimated to be an
average of 20 hours per system. These activities will be undertaken by
all 67,656 CWSs and NTNCWSs that must comply with the LCRR. The total
burden for these activities, for the three year period, for all systems
is estimated to be 1,353,120 hours. During the initial three year
period, primacy agencies will incur burdens associated with one-time
startup activities. The burden associated with adopting the rule,
modifying data systems, and providing training for internal staff and
the staff of public water systems during the first three years is
estimated at an average of 7,128 hours per primacy agency. The total
burden for these activities, for the three year period, for the 56
primacy agencies is estimated to be 399,168 hours.
    Average estimated burden: The average burden per response (i.e.,
the amount of time needed for each activity that requires a collection
of information) is estimated to be 9.16 to 9.63 hours; the average cost
per response is $333-351.
    Total estimated burden: For the first three years after the final
rule is published, water systems and primacy agencies will implement
several requirements. Since the first three years of the rule focuses
on the creation of inventories for LSLs, households are not faced with
costs. The public water systems burden will include the following
activities: Reading and understanding the revised rule, personnel time
for attending trainings, clarifying regulatory requirements with the
primacy agency during rule implementation. Public water systems will
also be required to create an LSL materials inventory and develop an
initial LSLR plan. The total burden hours for public water systems
ranges from 2.51 to 2.69 million hours. The total cost for public water
systems ranges from $77.5 to $83.4 million. For additional information
on the public water systems activity burden see sections VI.D of this
preamble.
    The state burden for the first three years of rule implementation
would include the following: Adopting the rule

and developing an implementation program; modifying data recording
systems; training staff; providing water system staff with initial and
on-going technical assistance and training; coordinating annual
administration tasks with EPA; reporting data to SDWIS/Fed; reviewing
public water system (PWS) inventory data; and conferring with LSL water
systems on initial planning for LSLR program activities. The total
burden hours for primacy agencies is 657,034 to 698,096 hours. The
total cost for primacy agencies is $37.6 to $40.0 million. See section
VI.D.8 of this preamble for additional discussion on burden and cost to
the primacy agency.
    The net change burden associated with moving from the information
requirements of the previous rule to those in the final LCRR over the
three years covered by the ICR is 3.17 to 3.4 million hours, for an
average of 1.06 to 1.13 million hours per year. The range reflects the
upper- and lower-bound estimates of the number of systems that need to
develop LSL inventories. The total net change in costs over the three-
year clearance period are $115.2 to $123.3 million, for an average of
$38.4 to $41.1 million per year (simple average over three years).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves
this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, EPA prepared an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule
and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain
advice and recommendations from small entity representatives that
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. Summaries of
the IFRA and Panel recommendations are presented in the proposed rule
at 84 FR 61684, November 13, 2019. As required by section 604 of the
RFA, EPA prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for
this action. The FRFA addresses the issues raised by public comments on
the IRFA for the proposed rule. The complete FRFA is available for
review in Chapter 8, section 8.4 of the final rule EA and is summarized
here.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be water systems serving
10,000 people or fewer. This is the threshold specified by Congress in
the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA for small water system flexibility
provisions. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this alternative
definition in the Federal Register (FR) (US EPA, 1998b, 63 FR 7620,
February 13, 1998), sought public comment, consulted with the Small
Business Administration, and finalized the small water system threshold
in the Agency's Consumer Confidence Report regulation (USEPA, 1998a, 63
FR 44524, August 19, 1998). As stated in that document, the alternative
definition would apply to this regulation.
    Under the SDWA, EPA sets public health goals and enforceable
standards for drinking water quality. As previously described, the LCR
requires water systems to take actions to address lead and copper
contamination in drinking water, including corrosion control treatment,
public education, and LSLR. EPA regulatory revisions in the final rule
strengthen public health protection and improve implementation in the
following areas: Tap sampling, corrosion control treatment, LSLR,
public notification and public education.
    EPA took a number of steps to solicit small entity stakeholder
input during the development of the final LCRR. Chapter 2, Section 2.2
of the final rule EA contains detailed information on stakeholder
outreach during the rulemaking process, including material on the
Federalism and Tribal consultation processes (also outlined in Sections
VII.F and VII.G of this preamble). EPA also specifically sought input
from small entity stakeholders through the Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel (SBAR) process under Section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended
by the SBREFA. On August 14, 2012, the EPA's Small Business Advocacy
Chairperson convened an SBAR Panel. In addition to its chairperson, the
SBAR Panel consisted of the Director of the Standards and Risk
Management Division within the EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs within the OMB, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the SBA. Detailed information on the overall panel process can be
found in the panel report titled, The Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule to Public Water System
Requirements available in the LCRR docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300). The
Agency also received comment on the proposed rule revisions that
provided small CWSs, serving 10,000 or fewer persons, and all NTNCWSs
greater flexibility to comply with the requirements of the LCRR. The
detailed public comment summaries including EPA's detailed responses
are provided in Section III.E.2 of this preamble.
    EPA identified over 63,324 small public water systems that may be
impacted by the final LCR revisions. A small public water system serves
between 25 and 10,000 people. These water systems include over 45,758
CWSs that serve year-round residents and more than 17,566 NTNCWSs that
serve the same persons over six months per year (e.g., a public water
system that is an office park or church). The final rule revisions to
the LCR include requirements for: Conducting an LSL inventory that is
updated annually; installing or re-optimizing corrosion control
treatment when water quality declines; enhanced water quality parameter
monitoring; establishment of a ``find-and-fix'' provision to evaluate
and remediate elevated lead at a site where the tap sample exceeds the
lead action level; and improved customer outreach. These final rule
revisions also include reporting and recordkeeping requirements. States
are required to implement operator certification (and recertification)
programs under SDWA section 1419 to ensure operators of CWSs and
NTNCWSs, including small water system operators, have the appropriate
level of certification.
    As a mechanism to reduce the burden of the final rule requirements
on small entities EPA has promulgated compliance flexibilities for
small CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons, and all NTNCWS with a 90th
percentile lead value above the lead trigger level or action level.
These systems may choose between LSLR; CCT installation; POU device
installation and maintenance; and replacement of lead-bearing materials
as the compliance option. As part of the FRFA analysis, EPA is
estimating low and high cost scenarios to characterize uncertainty in
the cost model results. These scenarios are functions of assigning
different, low and high, input values to a number of variables that
affect the relative cost of the small system compliance options. As
indicated in Exhibit 7-1, under the previous LCR, EPA estimates that,
under the low cost scenario, 26,013 small CWSs will have annual total
LCR related costs of more than one percent of revenues, and that 13,339
of these

small CWSs will have annual total costs of three percent or greater of
revenue. Under the final LCRR, the number of small CWSs that will
experience annual total costs of more than one percent of revenues
increases by 11,873 to 37,885 and the number of small CWSs that will
have annual total costs exceeding three percent of revenues increases
by 8,521 to 21,860. Under the high cost scenario, EPA estimates that
under the previous LCR, 27,719 small CWSs will have annual total costs
of more than one percent of revenues, and that 15,472 of these small
CWSs will have annual total costs of three percent or greater of
revenue. Under the final LCRR, the number of small CWSs that will
experience annual total costs of more than one percent of revenues
increases by 13,221 to 40,940 and the number of small CWSs that will
have annual total costs of more than three percent of revenues
increases by 9,994 to 25,466.

  Exhibit 7-1--Number of Small Community Water Systems With Annual LCR-
 Related Costs of Above 1 Percent or 3 Percent of Annual Revenue for the
 Previous Rule and Final LCRR Under the Low Cost and High Cost Scenarios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Number of small CWSs with:          Previous rule    Final LCRR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Low Cost Scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual LCR-related costs >1 percent of            26,013          37,885
 revenue................................
Annual LCR-related costs >3 percent of            13,339          21,860
 revenue................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           High Cost Scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual LCR-related costs >1 percent of            27,719          40,940
 revenue................................
Annual LCR-related costs >3 percent of            15,472          25,466
 revenue................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also assessed the degree to which the final LCRR small system
flexibilities would mitigate compliance costs. The Agency estimated the
cost of the LCRR if no compliance alternatives were available to small
systems. The annual incremental cost of the LCRR without the small
system compliance alternatives ranges from $174 to $419 million at a 3
percent discount rate, and from $180 to $474 million at a 7 percent
discount rate in 2016 dollars. This demonstrates a cost savings, from
allowing CWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer persons, and all NTNCWSs
compliance flexibilities, of between $13 million and $101 million
across discount rates and low/high cost scenarios.
    See Chapter 8, section 8.4 of the final LCRR Economic Analysis
(USEPA, 2020a) for more information on the characterization of the
impacts under the final rule. EPA has considered an alternative
approach to provide regulatory flexibility to small water systems.
Section 8.4 of the final LCRR Economic Analysis contains an assessment
of impacts for an alternative option that sets the threshold for system
compliance flexibility at systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons. See
section III.E of this preamble for the detailed explanation of the
rationale for EPA's selection of systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons for the CWS small systems flexibilities threshold.
    In addition, EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide to
help small entities comply with this rule. The Small System Compliance
Guide would be developed the first 3 years after promulgation.

E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains a Federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a written
statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is included
in the docket for this action (see Chapter 8 in the Economic Analysis
of the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a)) and is
briefly summarized here.
    Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
UMRA section 204, EPA consulted with governmental entities affected by
this rule. EPA describes the government-to-government dialogue and
comments from state, local, and tribal governments in section VII.F
Executive Order 13132: Federalism and section VII.G Executive Order
13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments of
this preamble.
    Consistent with UMRA section 205, EPA identified and analyzed a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives to determine the treatment
technique requirements in the final LCR revisions. Sections III, IV,
and V of this preamble describe the final options. See section VI.F of
this preamble and Chapter 9 in the Economic Analysis of the Final Lead
and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a) for alternative options that
were considered.
    This action may significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
EPA consulted with small governments concerning the regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. EPA
describes this consultation above in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), section VIII.D of this preamble.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EPA has concluded that this action has Federalism implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state or
local governments. EPA provides the following federalism summary impact
statement. EPA consulted with state and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed action to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA held federalism
consultations on November 15, 2011, and on January 8, 2018. EPA invited
the following national organizations representing state and local
elected officials to a meeting on January 8, 2018, in Washington DC:
The National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National League of
Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of
Counties, the International City/County Management Association, the
National Association of Towns and Townships, the County Executives of
America, and the Environmental Council of the States. Additionally, EPA
invited the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the

National Rural Water Association, the American Water Works Association,
the American Public Works Association, the National School Board
Association, the American Association of School Administrators, and the
Western Governors' Association to participate in the meeting. EPA also
provided the associations' membership an opportunity to provide input
during follow-up meetings. EPA held five follow up meetings between
January 8, 2018, and March 8, 2018. In addition to input received
during the meetings, EPA provided an opportunity to receive written
input within 60 days after the initial meeting. A summary report of the
views expressed during Federalism consultations is available in the
Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action has tribal implications, since it may impose
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, and the
Federal Government will not provide the funds necessary to pay those
costs. There are 996 public water systems serving tribal communities,
87 of which are federally owned. The economic analysis of the final
LCRR requirements estimated that the total annualized incremental costs
placed on all systems serving tribal communities ranges from $1-$2.4
million. While the average annual incremental cost increase per tribal
system is estimated to range from $1,027 to $2,362, EPA notes that
these estimated impacts will not fall evenly across all tribal systems.
The final LCRR does offer regulatory relief by providing flexibility
for CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people and all NTNCWSs to choose CCT,
LSLR, POU devices, and replacement of lead-bearing materials to address
lead in drinking water. This flexibility may result in LCR
implementation cost savings for many tribal systems since 98 percent of
tribal CWSs serve 10,000 or fewer people and 17 percent of all tribal
systems are NTNCWSs. EPA consulted with tribal officials under EPA's
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the
process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation
is provided in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300). EPA held consultations
with federally-recognized Indian Tribes in 2011 and 2018. The 2018
consultations with federally-recognized Indian Tribes began on January
16, 2018 and ended March 16, 2018. The first national webinar was held
January 31, 2018, while the second national webinar was held February
15, 2018. A total of 48 tribal representatives participated in the two
webinars. Updates on the consultation process were provided to the
National Tribal Water Council upon request at regularly scheduled
monthly meetings during the consultation process. Also, upon request,
informational webinars were provided to the National Tribal Toxics
Council's Lead Subcommittee on January 30, 2018, and EPA Region 9's
Regional Tribal Operations Committee (RTOC) on February 8, 2018.
Additionally, EPA received written comments from the following Tribes
and tribal organizations: The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, the
National Tribal Water Council, the United South and Eastern Tribes
Sovereignty Protection Fund, and the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed
Council.
    EPA has reviewed the estimated cost data, the comments received
from tribal groups, and the quantified and non-quantified benefits
associated with the revision to the LCR and determined that the
regulatory burden placed on tribes is outweighed by the positive
benefits. Given that the majority of tribal systems serve fewer than
10,000 persons, EPA has provided regulatory relief in the form of small
system compliance flexibilities. For additional information on these
compliance flexibilities and their estimated impacts see sections III.E
and VII.D of this preamble and Chapter 8, section 8.4 of the final LCRR
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020a).
    As required by section 7(a) of the Executive order, EPA's Tribal
Official has certified that the requirements of the executive order
have been met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of the
certification is included in the docket for this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and, based on the record, EPA finds that the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate
effect on children. Accordingly, EPA has evaluated the environmental
health and safety effects of lead found in drinking water on children
and estimated the exposure reduction, risk reduction and health
endpoint impacts to children associated with the adoption and
optimization of corrosion control treatment technologies and the
replacement of LSLs. There are non-quantified lead health benefits to
children that will be realized as a result of this rulemaking,
including from testing in schools and child care facilities. EPA
assessed benefits of the LCRR in terms of avoided losses in the
intelligence quotient (IQ) in children that result from the additional
actions required under the LCRR. The results of these evaluations are
contained in the Economic Analysis of the Final Lead and Copper Rule
Revisions (USEPA, 2020a) and described in section VI.D.2 of this
preamble. Copies of the Economic Analysis of the Final Lead and Copper
Rule Revisions and supporting information are available in the Docket
(EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. The public and private water systems
affected by this action do not, as a rule, generate power. This action
does not regulate any aspect of energy distribution as the water
systems that are regulated by the LCR already have electrical service.
Finally, EPA has determined that the incremental energy used to
implement corrosion control treatment at drinking water systems in
response to the final regulatory requirements is minimal. As such, EPA
does not anticipate that this rule will have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    This action involves technical standards. EPA may use existing
voluntary consensus standards as it relates to additional monitoring
for lead and copper, since monitoring and sample analysis methodologies
are often based on voluntary consensus standards. However, the final
LCRR does not change any methodological requirements for monitoring or
sample analysis. EPA's approved monitoring and sampling protocols
generally include voluntary consensus standards that are in accordance
with applicable standards established by an organization accredited for
that purpose such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI),
and other such accrediting bodies deemed appropriate for compliance
monitoring by the Administrator. EPA notes that in some cases, this
rule revises the required frequency and number of lead tap samples.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in the Environmental
Justice Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Revision Rule Report,
which can be found in the docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300. Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission. Agencies must
do this by identifying and addressing as appropriate any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    In evaluating baseline exposure to lead in drinking water, data
indicate that the possibility of a disproportionately high and adverse
human health risk among minority populations and low-income populations
exist. Higher than expected proportions of children in minority
households and/or low-income households live in housing built during
decades of higher LSL usage. The final rule seeks to reduce the health
risks of exposure to lead in drinking water provided by CWSs and
NTNCWSs. Since water systems with LSLs are more likely to have an
action level exceedance or a trigger level exceedance and, therefore,
engage in actions to reduce lead concentrations, the final rule should
help improve the baseline environmental justice concerns. The final
rule is not expected to have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income
populations. The final rule should result in CCT and LSLR changes at
water systems with higher baseline lead concentrations. It increases
the level of health protection for all affected populations. The LSLR
provision may be less likely than the CCT provision to address baseline
health risk disparity among low-income populations because LSLR may not
be affordable for low-income households.
    However, there are Federal and state programs that may be used to
fund LSLR programs including the cost of LSLR for customer-owned LSLs.
These include but are not limited to the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF), Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)
Program, Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of
2016 grant programs, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
The benefit-cost analysis of the final rule indicates that CCT changes
will account for most of the benefits. Therefore, health risk reduction
benefits will be more uniformly distributed among populations with high
baseline health risks including minority and low-income households.
Also, given the availability of Federal and state funding sources to
support full LSLR, the final rule meets the intent of the Federal
policy requiring incorporation of environmental justice into Federal
agency missions.

L. Consultations With the Science Advisory Board and the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council

1. Consultation With the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Under SDWA
Section 1412(e)
    As required by section 1412(e) of the SDWA, in 2011, EPA sought an
evaluation of current scientific data to determine whether partial LSLR
effectively reduce water lead levels. When the LCR was promulgated in
1991, large water systems, serving greater than 50,000 people, were
required to install CCT and small and medium water systems, serving
50,000 or fewer people if samples exceeded the action level for lead.
If the action level was not met after installing CCT, water systems are
required to replace 7 percent of its LSLs annually. However, in 2000,
revisions to the LCR allowed water systems, if they exceeded the action
level, to replace only the portion of the LSL that the water system
owned and to replace the customer's portion of the LSL at the
customer's expense. This practice is known as a partial LSLR.
    EPA asked the SAB to evaluate the current scientific data on the
following five partial LSLR issues: (1) Associations between partial
LSLR and blood lead levels in children; (2) lead tap water sampling
data before and after partial LSLR; (3) comparisons between partial and
full LSLR; (4) partial LSLR techniques; and (5) the impact of galvanic
corrosion. EPA identified several studies for the SAB to review while
the SAB selected additional studies for their evaluation. The SAB
deliberated and sought input from public meetings held on March 30 and
31, 2011, and during a public conference call on May 16, 2011. The
SAB's final report, titled ``SAB Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Partial Lead Service Line Replacements'' was approved by the SAB on
July 19, 2011, and transmitted to the EPA Administrator on September
28, 2011.
    The SAB determined that the quality and quantity of data was
inadequate to fully evaluate the effectiveness of partial LSLR in
reducing drinking water lead concentrations. Both the small number of
studies and the limitations within these studies (i.e., lack of
comparability between studies, small sample size) barred a
comprehensive assessment of partial LSLR efficacy. However, despite the
limitations, the SAB concluded that partial LSLR's have not been shown
to reliably reduce drinking water lead levels in the short-term of days
to months, and potentially even longer. Additionally, partial LSLR is
often associated with elevated drinking water lead levels in the short-
term. The available data suggested that the elevated drinking water
lead levels after the partial LSLR tend to stabilize over time to lower
than or to levels similar to before the partial LSLR. Therefore, the
SAB concluded that available data suggest that partial LSLR's may pose
a risk to the population due to short-term elevations in drinking water
lead concentrations after a partial LSLR, which last for an unknown
period. Considering the SAB's findings on partial LSLR, EPA determined
that partial replacements should no longer be required when water
systems exceed the action level for lead, but EPA still considers full
replacement of the LSL as beneficial (USEPA, 2011b).
    Following the proposal, the SAB elected to review the scientific
and technical basis of the proposed rule, on March 30, 2020. A work
group took the lead in SAB deliberations on this topic at a public
teleconference held on May 11, 2020. The SAB provided advice and
comments in its June 12, 2020 report. Similar comments that were raised
by the SAB were also raised by public commenters. As a result, the
comments have been addressed by EPA in the final rule, supporting
documents and throughout this notice.
2. Consultation With National Drinking Water Advisory Council Under
SDWA Section 1412(d)
    The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) is a Federal
Advisory Committee that supports EPA

in performing its duties and responsibilities related to the national
drinking water program and was created as a part of SDWA in 1974. EPA
sought advice from the NDWAC as required under Section 1446 of the
SDWA. EPA consulted with NDWAC on July 21-22, 2011, to provide updates
on the proposed LCR revisions and solicit feedback on potential
regulatory options under consideration. In November 2011, NDWAC held
deliberations on LSLR requirements after they received the SAB's final
report on the effectiveness of partial LSLR. In December 2011, a public
meeting was held where NDWAC provided EPA with major recommendations on
the potential LCR regulatory revisions, which are outlined in a letter
dated December 23, 2011.
    In 2014, the NDWAC formed the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group
(LCRWG) to provide additional advice to EPA on potential options for
long-term regulatory revisions. EPA held meetings from March of 2014
until June 2015 where NDWAC LCRWG members discussed components of the
rule and provided EPA with advice for addressing the following issues:
Sample site collection criteria, lead sampling protocols, public
education for copper, and measures to ensure optimal CCT and LSLR.
NDWAC provided the Agency with their final recommendations and findings
in a report submitted to the Administrator in December 2015. In the
report, NDWAC acknowledged that reducing lead exposure is a shared
responsibility between consumers, the government, public water systems,
building owners, and public health officials. In addition, they
recognized that creative financing is necessary to reach the LSL
removal goals, especially for disparate and vulnerable communities. The
NDWAC advised EPA to maintain the LCR as a treatment technique rule but
with enhanced improvements. NDWAC qualitatively considered costs before
finalizing its recommendations, emphasizing that public water systems
and states should focus efforts where the greatest public health
protection can be achieved, incorporating their anticipated costs in
their capital improvement program or the requests for Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds. The LCRWG outlined an extensive list of
recommendations for the LCR revisions, including establishing a goal-
based LSLR program, strengthening CCT requirements, and tailoring water
quality parameters to the specific CCT plan for each water system.
    The report NDWAC provided for EPA also included recommendations for
renewed collaborative commitments between government and all levels of
the public from state and local agencies, to other stakeholders and
consumers while recognizing EPA's leadership role in this area. These
complementary actions as well as a detailed description of the
provisions for NDWAC's recommendations for the long-term revisions to
the LCR can be found in the ``Report of the Lead and Copper Rule
Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council'' (NDWAC,
2015). EPA took into consideration NDWAC's recommendations when
developing these revisions to the LCR.
    On December 4-5, 2019, EPA held a NDWAC meeting in Washington, DC
where EPA presented the proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR).
In the presentation, the major LCRR revisions were highlighted such as
the LSL inventory, the new trigger level of 10 ppb, and new sampling
protocols. The presentation focused on six key areas: Identifying areas
most impacted, strengthening treatment requirements, replacing LSLs,
increasing sampling reliability, improving risk communication, and
protecting children in schools. EPA reiterated that the LCRR was
developed with extensive consultation from state, local and tribal
partners to identify avenues that would reduce elevated levels of lead
in drinking water. EPA reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and
improved communication to the public.

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

    On June 12, 2019, EPA consulted with the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) on the proposed LCRR. On July 22, 2020, EPA
consulted with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the
final rule. EPA received and considered comments from the HHS for both
the proposal and final rules through the inter-agency review process
described in section VII.A of this preamble.

N. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

VIII. References

AAP COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 2016. Prevention of Childhood
Lead Toxicity. Pediatrics. 2016;138(1):e20161493
ANSI. (November 1, 2017). Replacement and Flushing of Lead Service
Lines. AWWA C810-17 43810. First Edition. Denver, CO: AWWA, 2017.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). 2020.
Costs of States Transactions Study (CoSTS) for EPA's Proposed LCRR.
February 6, 2020.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. (August 2019).
Developing Lead Service Line Inventories Presented by the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. Retrieved August
2019, from: https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ASDWA_Developing-Lead-Service-Line-Inventories.pdf.
AWWA. 2017. Lead Service Line Management. Retrieved September 3,
2019 from: https://www.awwa.org/Policy-Advocacy/AWWA-Policy-Statements/Lead-Service-Line-Management.
AwwaRF. 2008. Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to
Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. 978-1-60573-031-7.
AwwaRF and DVGW-Technologiezentrum Wasser. 1996. Internal Corrosion
of Water Distribution Systems. 2nd edition. AwwaRF Order 90508.
Project #725. AWWA Research Foundation (now Water Research
Foundation) and AWWA. Denver, CO.
Budtz-J[oslash]rgensen, E., Bellinger, D., Lanphear, B., &
Grandjean, P. (2013). An International Pooled Analysis for Obtaining
a Benchmark Dose for Environmental Lead Exposure in Children. Risk
Analysis, 33(3), 450-461. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01882.x.
Chin, D., Karalekas, P.C.J., 1985. Lead product use survey of public
water supply distribution systems throughout the United States. In:
Plumbing Materials and Drinking Water Quality: Proceedings of a
Seminar Held at Cincinnati, Ohio, May 16-17, 1984. EPA 600/9-85-007,
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, pp. 132-146.
Chislock, M. F., Doster, E., Zitomer, R. A. and A.E. Wilson. 2013.
Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic
Ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge 4(4):10.
Chowdhury, R., Ramond, A., O'Keeffe, L. M., Shahzad, S., Kunutsor,
S. K., Muka, T., . . . Di Angelantonio, E. 2018. Environmental toxic
metal contaminants and risk of cardiovascular disease: systematic
review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 362, k3310. doi:10.1136/bmj.k3310.
Cornwell, D.A, R.A. Brown, and S.H Via. 2016. National Survey of
Lead Service Line Occurrence. Journal American Water Works
Association. 108(4):E182-E191.
Crump, K. S., Van Landingham, C., Bowers, T. S., Cahoy, D., &
Chandalia, J. K. (2013). A statistical reevaluation of the data used
in the Lanphear et al. (2005) pooled-analysis that related low
levels of blood lead to intellectual deficits in children. Crit Rev
Toxicol, 43(9), 785-799. doi:10.3109/10408444.2013.832726.
DC Water. 2016. DC Water Service Information. Retrieved August 12,
2019, from https://geo.dcwater.com/Lead/.
De Rosa and Williams. 1992. Particulate lead in water supplies
(TMU9024). Final

Report to the Department of the Environment. Swindon, England: Water
Research Center (1992).
Del Toral, Miguel A. Del. Et al. ``Detection and Evaluation of
Elevated Lead Release from Service Lines: A Field Study.''
Environmental Science and Technology; vol. 47, no. 16, 2013, pp.
9300-9307.
Deshommes, E., Bannier, A., Laroche, L., Nour, S., & Prevost, M.
2016. Monitoring-based framework to detect and manage lead water
service lines. Journal of the American Water Works Association,
108(11), E555-E570.
Dodds, W.K., Bouska, W.W., Eitzmann, J.L., Pilger, T.J., Pitts,
K.L., Riley, A.J., Schloesser, J.T., and D.J. Thornbrugh. 2009.
Eutrophication of U.S. Freshwaters: Analysis of Potential Economic
Damages. Environmental Science Technology 43 (1).
EDF. 2019. Recognizing efforts to replace lead service lines.
Retrieved from https://www.edf.org/health/recognizing-efforts-replace-lead-service-lines.
Edwards and Triantafyllidou, 2007. M. Edwards, S. Triantafyllidou,
Chloride-to-sulfate mass ratio and lead leaching to water. J. Water
Works Assoc. 2007, 99, 96.
Elfland et al. 2010. Lead-contaminated water from brass plumbing
devices in new buildings. J. Water Works Assoc, 102, 11.
ERG, 2017. Summary Report of the Peer Review Meeting for EPA's Draft
Report, Proposed Modeling Approaches for a Health-based Benchmark
for Lead in Drinking Water. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/lcr_peer_review_summary_report_final_10-25-17_508.pdf.
Galesburg, 2016. Lead Service Line Replacement Grant Program
Application. Accessed 9/12/2019. https://www.ci.galesburg.il.us/assets/1/22/LEAD_SERVICE_LINE_REPLACEMENT_GRANT_PROGRAM_APPLICATION.pdf.
GAO-17-424, U.S. Government Accountability Office. Drinking Water,
Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA's Oversight
of the Lead and Copper Rule. September, 2017.
GAO-18-328, U.S. Government Accountability Office. K-12 Education,
Lead Testing of School Drinking Water Would Benefit from Improved
Federal Guidance. July 2018.
GAO-18-620, U.S. Government Accountability Office. Drinking Water,
Approaches for Identifying Lead Service Lines Should be Shared With
All States. September 2018.
Glibert, P. M., Anderson, D. M., Gentien, P., Graneli, E. and K. G.
Sellner. 2005. The Global, Complex Phenomena of Harmful Algal
Blooms. Oceanography 18:2.
Great Lakes--Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial
Public Health and Environmental Managers. 2018. Recommended
standards for water works 2018 edition: Policies for the review and
approval of plans and specifications for public water supplies.
Minnesota's Bookstore Communications Media Division.
Gregory and Jackson, 1984; Gregory, R. and Jackson, P.J. Central
Water Treatment to Reduce Lead Solubility. Water Research Center.
Prepared for the AWWA Annual Conference. Dallas, TX (1984).
HDR. (2009). An Analysis of the Correlation between Lead Released
from Galvanized Iron Piping and the Contents of Lead in Drinking
Water. Retrieved August 13, 2019, from https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/galvanizedprojectreport.pdf.
Hill, C.P., and Cantor, A.F. 2011. Internal Corrosion Control in
Water Distribution Systems. AWWA Manual M58, First Edition. American
Water Works Association. Denver, CO.
Kahn, H.D. and K. Stralka. 2009. Estimated daily average per capita
water ingestion by child and adult age categories based on USDA's
1994-1996 and 1998 continuing survey of food intakes by individuals.
Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 19(4):396-
404.
Kane, J., and Tomer, A. 2018. Renewing the water workforce:
Improving water infrastructure and creating a pipeline to
opportunity. Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings.
Katner, Adrienne, et al. Effectiveness of Prevailing Flush
Guidelines to Prevent Exposure to Lead in Tap Water. MDPI,
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 20 July 2018,
www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/7/1537.
Kirrane, E. F., & Patel, M. M. (2014). Memorandum from EPA NCEA to
ISA for Lead Docket: Identification and consideration of errors in
Lanphear et al. (2005), ``Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and
Children's Intellectual Function: An International Pooled
Analysis.''
Lanphear, B. P., Hornung, R., Khoury, J., Yolton, K., Baghurst, P.
A., Bellinger, D. C., . . . Roberts, R. (2005). Low-Level
Environmental Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual Function: An
International Pooled Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives,
113(7), 894-899. doi:10.1289/ehp.7688.
Lanphear, B.P. 2016. Prevention of Childhood Lead Toxicity.
Pediatrics. August 2016. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/138/1/e20161493.full.pdf.
Lanphear, B.P., R. Hornung, J. Khoury, K. Yolton, P.A. Baghurst, DC
Bellinger, R. Roberts. 2019. Erratum: Low-level environmental lead
exposure and children's intellectual function: An international
pooled analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(7):894-899.
Lin, D., Lutter, R., & Ruhm, C. J. 2016. Cognitive performance and
labour market outcomes. Labour Economics, 51, 121-135.
Lyon and Lenihan, 1977. Lyon, T.D.B. and Lenihan, J.M.A. Corrosion
in Solder Jointed Copper Tubes Resulting in Lead Contamination of
Drinking Water. Br. Corros. J. (March 1977), Vol. 12, No. 1.
Lytle, D.A. and Schock, M.R. (1996). Stagnation time, composition,
pH and orthophosphate effects on metal leaching from brass. EPA/600/
R-96/103 September 1996.
Lytle, D.A. Et al. 2019. Sequential Drinking Water Sampling as a
Tool for Evaluating Lead in Flint, Michigan. Water Research; Vol.
157, pp 40-54.
McFadden, M., et al. 2011. Contributions to Drinking Water Lead from
Galvanized Iron Corrosion Scales. Journal American Water Works
Association; 103(4), pp 76-89. DOI: 10.1002/j.1551-
8833.2011.tb11437.x.
Michigan EGLE. 2020. Preliminary Distribution System Material
Inventory. Available online at: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/egle-dwehd-PDSMISummaryData_682673_7.pdf.
Ministry of Ontario. Regulation 170/03. Schedule 15.1 Lead, under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Guidance Document for Preparing
Corrosion Control Plans for Drinking Water Systems. PIBs # 7463.
December 2009.
Mushak, P. 1991. Gastro-intestinal absorption of lead in children
and adults: Overview of biological and biophysico-chemical aspects.
Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability 3(3-4):87-104.
NDWAC Lead and Copper Working Group. (2015). Report of the Lead and
Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council--Final. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/ndwaclcrwgfinalreportaug2015.pdf.
National Research Council. (2000). Copper in Drinking Water.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Toxicology Program. (2012). NTP Monograph on Health Effects
of Low-Level Lead. Durham, NC.
Nguyen et al., 2010. C. K. Nguyen, K. R. Stone, A. Dudi, M. A.
Edwards, Corrosive microenvironments at lead solder surfaces arising
from galvanic corrosion with copper pipe. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2010, 44, 7076.
Nguyen et al., 2011. C. K. Nguyen, K. R. Stone, M. A. Edwards,
Chloride-to-sulfate mass ratio: practical studies in galvanic
corrosion of lead solder. J. Water Works Assoc. 2011, 103, 81.
Office of Management and Budget. (2003) Circular A-4. Washington,
DC.
Office of Inspector General (EPA). ``Drinking Water: EPA Needs to
Take Additional Steps to Ensure Small Community Water Systems
Designated as Serious Violators Achieve Compliance.'' Report No. 16-
P-0108. March 22, 2016.
Oliphant, 1982. Oliphant, R.J. Lead Contamination of Potable Water
Arising from Soldered Joints. Water Research Center (1982).
Perrin Lanphear, B., MD, MPH, FAAP. (2016, July). Prevention of
Childhood Lead Toxicity. Retrieved October 01, 2020, from https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/138/1/e20161493.full.pdf.
Pocock, S. J., Shaper, A. G., Walker, M., Wale, C. J., Clayton, B.,
Delves, T., . . . Powell, P. (1983). Effects of tap water lead,
water hardness, alcohol, and cigarettes on blood lead
concentrations. J Epidemiol Community Health, 37(1), 1-7.

President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children (Task Force). 2018. Federal Action Plan to Reduce
Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts. December
2018. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-12/documents/fedactionplan_lead_final.pdf.
Salkever, D. S. (1995). Updated Estimates of Earnings Benefits from
Reduced Exposure of Children to Environmental Lead. Environmental
Research, 70, 1-6. doi:doi: 0013-9351/95.
Sandvig, A., P. Kwan, P.E., G. Kirmeyer, P.E., Dr. B. Maynard, Dr.
D. Mast, Dr. R. R. Trussell, P.E., Dr. S. Trussell, P.E., A. Cantor,
P.E., MCSD, and A. Prescott. 2008. Contribution of Service Line and
Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. Denver,
Colo.: Awwa Research Foundation. Peer reviewed by AwwaRF Project
Advisory Committee.
Schock, M.R., and Lytle, D.A. 2011. Chapter 20: Internal Corrosion
and Deposition Control. In Water Quality and Treatment. 6th Edition.
AWWA and McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Schwartz, J., & Otto, D. (1991). Lead and minor hearing impairment.
Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, 46(5), 300-305.
doi:10.1080/00039896.1991.9934391.
Sherlock, J., Smart, G., Forbes, G. I., Moore, M. R., Patterson, W.
J., Richards, W. N., & Wilson, T. S. (1982). Assessment of lead
intakes and dose-response for a population in Ayr exposed to a
plumbosolvent water supply. Hum Toxicol, 1(2), 115-122.
Slabaugh, R.M., R.B. Arnold, S. Chaparro, and C.P. Hill. 2015.
National Cost Implications of Potential Long[hyphen]Term LCR
Requirements. Journal American Water Works Association. 107(8):E389-
E400.
State of California. 2016. Public water systems: lead user service
lines. SB-1398.
State of Illinois. 2017. 99th General Assembly. PA 99-0922.
State of Michigan. 2017. Supplying Water to the Public, 2017-008 EQ.
State of Ohio. 2016. 31st General Assembly. Adoption of Rules
Relating to Water System Testing.
United States. America's Water Infrastructure Act. 2018. Public Law
115-270, 132 Stat. 3765, Title II (Oct. 23, 2018).
United States. Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act.
2016. Public Law 114-322, 130 Stat. 1628, Title II (December 16,
2016).
United States. 1981. Community Economic Development. U.S. Code 42.
Chapter 105, Subchapter 1. August 13, 1981.
United States. 2002. Improving the Academic Achievement of the
Disadvantaged. U.S. Code 20. Chapter 70, Subchapter 1. January 8,
2002.
United States. 2010a. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. U.S. Code 42.
Chapter 13, Section 1758. December 13, 2010.
United States. 2010b. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. U.S. Code 42.
Chapter 13, Section 1766. December 13, 2010.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. School
Breakfast Program. Economic Research Service. https://
www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/child-nutrition-
programs/school-breakfast-program/
#:~:text=In%20FY%202018%2C%2014.69%20million,were%20provided%20at%20r
educed%20price.
USEPA. 1973. Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives; Control of Lead
Additives in Gasoline. Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR part 80.
Vol. 38, No. 234. December 6, 1973.
USEPA. 1977. Lead-Containing Paint and Certain Consumer Products
Bearing Lead-Containing Paint. Code of Federal Regulations 16 CFR
part 1303. Vol. 42, No. 170. September. 1, 1977.
USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Memorandum to
Arthur Perler, Science and Technology Branch from Jon Longtin, Water
Supply Technology Branch regarding Distribution Tables for NIRS
Results (February 23, 1988).
USEPA. 1990a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Impact of Lead
and Other Metallic Solders on Water Quality. Prepared by N.E.
Murrell for USEPA (February 1990).
USEPA. 1990b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Update of the
National Inorganic and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) for Lead. From
Jeff Cohen to Docket (July 1990).
USEPA. 1991. ``Drinking Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant Level
Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and
Copper; Final Rule.'' Federal Register, 40 CFR parts 141 and 142.
Vol. 56, No. 110. June 7, 1991.
USEPA. 1995. Lead solders. Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR.
Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part 189, Subpart D, Section 189.240. June
27, 1995.
US EPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer
Confidence Reports; Final rule. Federal Register. 63 FR 44524.
August 19, 1998.
US EPA. 1998b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer
Confidence Reports; Proposed rule and notice of alternative
definition. Federal Register. 63 FR 7620, February 13, 1998.
USEPA. 1998c. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non-
Microbial Contaminants Regulated Before 1996. September 1998.
USEPA. 1998c. Consumer Confidence Report Regulation. Federal
Register 63(160):44524. August 19, 1998. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
USEPA. 1999. Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of
Public Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the
Direct Influence (GWUDI) of Surface Water. EPA 815-R-99-016. April
1999. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=200022MT.txt.
USEPA. 2000a. Geometries and Characteristics of Public Water
Systems. EPA 815-R-00-024. December 2000.
USEPA. 2000b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public
Notification Rule. Federal Register 65(87):25982. May 4, 2000.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
USEPA. 2000c. Report of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
Small Systems Implementation Working Group. EPA-816-R-00-012. April
2000.
USEPA. 2003a. Final Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and
Copper Control Strategies. Report No. EPA-816-R-03-001. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule-compliance-help-primacyagencies.
USEPA. 2003b. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for
Lead for an Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult
Exposures to Lead in Soil. Retrieved from https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/199244.pdf.
USEPA. 2004a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical
Assessment Summary for Lead and compounds (inorganic); CASRN 7439-
92-1 (https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0277_summary.pdf).
USEPA. 2004b. US EPA Lead Service Line Replacement Workshop Summary
Report.
USEPA. 2008a. ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.''
73 FR 66964. Pages 66964-67062. November 2008 (to be codified at 40.
CFR parts 51, 51, 53, and 58).'' Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/11/12/E8-25654/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for-lead.
USEPA 2008b. Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair
and Painting Program Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-
Occupied Facilities. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2008c. Sanitary Survey Guidance Manual for Ground Water
Systems. EPA 815-R-08-015. October 2008. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/gwr_sanitary_survey_guidance.pdf.
USEPA 2009. 2006 Community Water System Survey. EPA 815-R-09-001.
February 2009. https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/community-water-system-survey.
USEPA. 2010. Lead and Copper Rule Monitoring and Reporting Guidance
for Public Water Systems. EPA 816-R-10-004. March 2010. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100DP2P.txt.
USEPA. 2011a. National Characteristics of Drinking Water Systems
Serving 10,000 or Fewer People. EPA 816-R-10-022. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/epa816r10022.pdf.
USEPA. 2011b. Science Advisory Board Drinking Water Committee
Augmented for the Review of the Effectiveness of Partial Lead
Service Line Replacements. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sab_evaluation_partial_lead_service_lines_epa-sab-11-015.pdf.
USEPA. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment for Lead. Office of
Research and

Development. (EPA/600/R-10/075F). Research Triangle Park, NC.
USEPA. 2015. Benefit and Cost Analysis for the Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating
Point Source Category EPA-821-R-15-005. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/steam-electric_benefit-cost-analysis_09-29-2015.pdf.
USEPA. 2016a. National Lakes Assessment 2012: A Collaborative Survey
of Lakes in the United States. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/nla_report_dec_2016.pdf.
USEPA. 2016b. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008-2009 Fact
Sheet. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/fact_sheet_draft_variation_march_2016_revision.pdf.
USEPA. 2016c. Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment Evaluation
Technical Recommendations for Primacy Agencies and Public Water
Systems (EPA-816-B-16-003) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-07/documents/occtmarch2016updated.pdf.
USEPA. 2016d. Safe Drinking Water Information System Federal Version
(SDWIS/Fed) Data Reporting Requirements, v1.2. Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water. March 2016.
USEPA. 2016e. WSG 197. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Memorandum to Water Division Directions, Regions I-X, from Peter C.
Grevatt, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. Clarification of
Recommended Tap Sampling Procedures for Purposes of the Lead and
Copper Rule (February 29, 2016).