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

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

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

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

have to simultaneously install OCCT and conduct service line
replacement.
    During the LCRR engagements and LCRI external engagements, some
stakeholders requested that EPA reduce the eligibility threshold. For
example, some States indicated that systems with more than 1,000
connections are unlikely to be able to implement the point-of-use
flexibility (USEPA, 2023j). Systems with more than 1,000 connections
will have a service population towards the upper end of the 501 to
3,300 size category, which is the proposed threshold for the point-of-
use flexibility. Other States indicated that only an even smaller
system size, those with 50 to 100 connections, would be likely to
implement the point-of-use flexibility (USEPA, 2023j). EPA agrees that
smaller water systems are more likely to find that the point-of-use
device and plumbing replacement options are more practicable techniques
for reducing lead exposure. However, EPA believes that some systems
serving between 250 people (approximately 100 connections) and 3,300
people may find these approaches feasible and believes it is
appropriate to provide these options for systems to consider and
implement with State approval.
    While some stakeholders have asked the Agency to retain point-of-
use device installation or replacement of all lead-bearing plumbing
flexibilities for larger small systems, EPA expects that these systems
may not be able to effectively implement these flexibilities. EPA is
requesting comment, however, on whether the Agency should maintain the
small system flexibility for CWSs serving 10,000 persons or fewer (see
section IX. of this document). EPA notes that the Agency is proposing
to retain eligibility for all NTNCWSs given that these systems are more
likely to have control over premise plumbing and are more likely to be
able to implement the point-of-use filtration and plumbing replacement
options regardless of population served.
    Point-of-use devices, such as reverse osmosis treatment systems,
could provide flexibilities to control other contaminants in addition
to lead as these technologies are often certified to remove multiple
drinking water contaminants. Selecting these technologies could provide
small water systems with the flexibility to achieve compliance with
other drinking water standards. EPA is requesting comment on the
ability and practicality of point-of-use devices to address multiple
contaminants.
    Consolidate flexibility provisions. EPA is proposing to consolidate
the small system flexibility provisions in Sec.  141.93 and remove
cross-references to Sec.  141.93 in other rule sections. This approach
comports with EPA's goal in the LCRR review notice of simplifying the
rule and streamlining rule requirements. It also recognizes that States
may choose to adopt standards that are more stringent than Federal
standards. If a State elects to not adopt the small system flexibility
provision, it will be helpful for the small system flexibility
provision in the Federal rule to be separate and therefore severable
from the remainder of the LCRI because it would allow those States to
incorporate the LCRI by reference without the need for extensive
revisions to the remainder of the LCRI. For States that elect not to
adopt the small system flexibility provision, small systems would be
subject to the CCT requirements in Sec. Sec.  141.81 and 141.82. The
provisions in Sec.  141.93 are distinct and unnecessary for States to
adopt in order to maintain primacy.

H. Public Education

LCRR Requirements
    Public education has been, and remains, a cornerstone treatment
technique to reduce risks from exposure to lead in drinking water. The
LCRR includes several public education requirements for water systems
to inform consumers about lead in drinking water and steps to reduce
their risk of exposure. These requirements include providing:
     Public education with consumers' individual lead tap
sampling results;
     Notification and public education for consumers served by
a lead, GRR, or lead status unknown service line;
     Public education to persons affected by a disturbance to a
lead, GRR, or lead status unknown service line; and
     Public education about the system's goal-based LSLR
program when a system exceeds the lead trigger level.
    The LCRR also requires water systems to conduct public outreach
activities if they exceed the trigger level and fail to meet their LSLR
goal rate. Systems must also take several public education actions if
they exceed the lead action level, including delivering public
education materials to customers, public health agencies, and
organizations that serve pregnant people and children, as well as other
public education activities. In addition, all CWSs must conduct annual
outreach to local and State health agencies about ``find-and-fix''
(referred to as distribution system and site assessment in the proposed
activities). Small CWSs and NTNCWSs that select point-of-use devices as
their compliance option in response to a lead action level exceedance
must provide public education materials to inform users how to properly
use point-of-use devices to maximize the units' effectiveness in
reducing lead levels in drinking water.
Proposed LCRI Requirements
    For the proposed LCRI, EPA is retaining the overall framework of
the public education provision in the LCRR, which requires water
systems to educate consumers about the risks of lead in drinking water
and ways to reduce their risk. EPA is proposing changes to strengthen
the public education requirements to (1) increase the likelihood that
the public education activities are effective in preventing adverse
effects of lead on the health of persons to the extent feasible, and
(2) conform to proposed changes to other aspects of the rule such as
the removal of the lead trigger level. EPA is also proposing new public
education requirements for copper. These changes are described below.
1. Feasibility of Public Education Requirements
    Public education is one of the treatment technique requirements EPA
promulgated in the LCR, in addition to LSLR, CCT, and source water
treatment. Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of SDWA authorizes EPA to promulgate a
regulation that requires the use of a treatment technique in lieu of an
MCL if it is not economically or technologically feasible to ascertain
the level of the contaminant. In such a rule, the statute requires the
Administrator to ``identify those treatment techniques which, in the
Administrator's judgment, would prevent known or anticipated adverse
effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible.'' 42 U.S.C.
300g-1(b)(7)(A). Public education provides the community with
information on ways to reduce their exposure to lead in their drinking
water and thereby can prevent adverse health effects associated with
exposure to lead in drinking water.
    EPA is proposing revisions in the LCRI to strengthen the public
education requirements to increase public health protection. EPA has
determined that the public education treatment technique is feasible
and prevents known or anticipated adverse health effects ``to the
extent feasible'' (USEPA, 2023b). Public education, among other things,
empowers people to make informed decisions about taking actions to
reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water and thereby reduce
their risk of adverse health effects. In the final LCR preamble, EPA
found that public education is an effective means of

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

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

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

Similar to the notice of lead tap sampling results, the notice of
copper tap sampling results must include the results of copper tap
water monitoring for the tap that was tested, an explanation of the
health effects of copper as provided in Appendix B to Subpart Q of
141--Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification, a list
of steps consumers can take to reduce exposure to copper in drinking
water and contact information for the water utility. The notice must
also provide the MCLG and the action level for copper, both of which
are 1.3 mg/L, and the definitions for these two terms from Sec.
141.153(c). In cases where copper samples are collected at the same
time as lead, EPA is proposing to allow systems to combine the lead and
copper results and required information into a single notice. EPA
expects that this will simplify implementation by allowing systems to
deliver both the lead and copper results and associated required
information at the same time. EPA acknowledges that the proposed
requirements for water systems to deliver all notices of individual tap
sampling results for lead and copper regardless of concentration within
three days would increase the number of notices that water systems
would be required to provide in a short time frame. EPA is requesting
comment on its proposed determination that water systems are capable of
providing all consumer notices of individual tap sampling results
within three calendar days, or if a longer time frame is appropriate
(e.g., three business days, seven calendar days, etc.) (see section IX.
of this document).
4. Other Public Education Materials
Supplemental Monitoring and Notification Requirements
    Under the LCRR, systems are required to offer to sample the tap
water for lead for any customer who requests it when there is a
systemwide lead action level exceedance. EPA is proposing to also
require systems to offer to sample the tap water for lead for any
customer served by an LSL, GRR service line, or unknown service line
regardless of lead levels calculated based on compliance monitoring.
The LCRR does not specify a sampling protocol for customer-requested
sampling. EPA is proposing to maintain flexibility for water systems to
determine the sampling protocol for this supplemental monitoring. For
sites with an LSL or GRR service line, the sampling would be required
to capture the water stagnant in the service line as well as any
premise plumbing (e.g., first- and fifth-liter samples, sequential
sampling, flush samples). Since LSLs and GRR service lines can increase
the risk of exposure to lead in drinking water, EPA believes this
proposed requirement would encourage more people who are at greater
risk of lead exposure to have their tap sampled to find out if there is
lead in their drinking water and what actions they can take to reduce
their risk of exposure. EPA is also proposing to require the system to
notify consumers of the results of this tap sampling so they are
informed and can decide to take any needed steps to reduce their
exposure to lead in their drinking water.
    EPA is also proposing to require systems to provide consumers
supplemental monitoring results within three days of the system
learning of the results. Under the LCRR (Sec.  141.85(c)), systems were
only required to notify customers of their results from samples
collected under Sec.  141.86 in three days if the sample exceeded the
lead action level, while samples below the lead action level could be
sent within 30 days. This proposed requirement is consistent with
feedback EPA heard throughout the LCRR review and LCRI engagements. EPA
heard requests for more proactive public education requirements, given
there is no known safe level of lead in drinking water and because the
lead action level is not health-based. EPA acknowledges that the
proposed requirements for water systems to deliver all notices of
individual lead tap sampling results from monitoring under Sec.  141.86
and from supplemental monitoring under Sec.  141.85(c) within three
days would increase the number of notices that water systems would be
required to provide in a short time frame. EPA is requesting comment on
the proposed requirement and the feasibility of providing these results
in three calendar days, or if a longer time frame is appropriate (e.g.,
three business days, seven calendar days, etc.) (see section IX. of
this document).
Public Education After a Lead Action Level Exceedance
    Under the LCRR, systems that exceed the lead action level must
deliver public education materials to their customers, public health
agencies, and organizations that serve pregnant people and children.
The information about the lead action level exceedance must be included
in customers' water bills. Public education materials about the action
level exceedance must also be posted online. Systems must submit press
releases to media outlets and conduct activities such as public service
announcements, host a public meeting, or conduct targeted customer
contact. Under the LCRR, water systems that exceed the lead action
level must conduct the public education activities under Sec.
141.85(b)(2) no later than 60 days after the tap sampling period in
which the exceedance occurred. If the water system exceeds the action
level again in the next tap sampling period (i.e., the water system has
consecutive lead action level exceedances), then the rule allows
systems up to 12 months to conduct the public education requirements.
    Time frames for delivering public education. EPA is proposing that
systems must always conduct the public education activities under Sec.
141.85(b)(2) within 60 days of the end of the tap sampling period in
which the exceedance occurred (e.g., June 30 or December 31 for
standard monitoring, or September 30 or the last day of an alternative
four-month tap sampling period approved by the State for annual and
reduced monitoring), regardless of whether the lead action level
exceedance was consecutive. This would ensure that consumers receive
information following every lead action level exceedance, instead of
waiting 12 months where two lead action level exceedances were
consecutive, which assures consumers receive information in a timely
manner so that they can take actions to reduce their lead exposure
risks. Under the LCRR, water systems may discontinue this public
education when they no longer exceed the lead action level. EPA has
heard concerns that water systems may discontinue public education
after calculating a 90th percentile level at or below the lead action
level based on fewer than the minimum number of samples required under
Sec.  141.86. Therefore, EPA is proposing a revision to clarify that
the calculated 90th percentile level at or below the lead action level
must be based on the minimum number of required samples under Sec.
141.86 in order for the system to be able to discontinue public
education (see section V.C.3. of this document). EPA is proposing that
public education following a lead action level exceedance be sent
within 60 days of the end of the tap sampling period for every lead
action level exceedance. During the LCRI consultations, many
stakeholders expressed concerns that a lower lead action level would
result in more action level exceedances and increase public education
in response to these lead action level exceedances as a result.
Providing public education within 60 days of the end of the tap
sampling period should be feasible for most water

systems (72 FR 57794, USEPA, 2007a). In the LCRR review engagements,
some commenters requested that EPA shorten this period so that public
education is required either 30 or 60 days after the system receives
the results, rather than 60 days after the end of the tap sampling
period. EPA believes that systems need the 60 days after the end of the
tap sampling period to develop public education materials, consult with
the State and to identify the organizations that they need to share
these materials with. However, EPA is requesting comment on whether
systems are capable of conducting the public education activities under
Sec.  141.85(b)(2) in a shorter time frame (e.g., 30 days after the
system receives the results or 30 days after the end of the tap
sampling period in which the exceedance occurs) (see section IX. of
this document).
    If water systems are unable to meet the public education
requirements following a lead action level exceedance, systems can
apply to the State for an extension under the LCRR. The LCRR does not
specify the length of the extension. When EPA introduced this extension
provision, the Agency previously explained that ``systems must start
these activities and States must approve in writing any deadline
extension within 60 days of the end of the monitoring period in which
the exceedance occurred'' and that ``States should still make every
effort to get public water systems to complete their public education
activities within 60 days after the end of the monitoring period'' (72
FR 57787, USEPA, 2007a). EPA is proposing to allow a State that grants
an extension for a water system to conduct the public education
activities, to make the deadline no more than 180 days after the end of
the tap sampling period in which the lead action level exceedance
occurred. In addition, EPA is proposing to restrict the extension such
that it only applies to the activities in Sec.  141.85(b)(2)(ii)
through (vi), and would not apply to delivery of public education
materials to consumers under Sec.  141.85(b)(2)(i) because it is
feasible for systems to distribute public education materials to
consumers within 60 days. This proposed revision ensures that systems
must deliver the public education materials no later than 60 days after
the end of the tap sampling period in which the action level exceedance
occurs, so that consumers have the information to decide to take steps
to reduce their exposure to lead sooner, thereby providing greater
public health protection.
    Who receives public education materials. Under the LCRR, water
systems must deliver these public education materials to bill paying
customers. For the LCRI, EPA is proposing to require the public
education materials also be delivered to every service connection
address served. This proposed requirement is responsive to feedback
heard during the public meetings on environmental justice
considerations for the proposed LCRI and LCRR review engagements, where
stakeholders expressed concerns about public education not reaching
renters because they may not be the bill paying customer (USEPA, 2023h;
USEPA, 2023d; see written comments and summaries of LCRR engagements,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255). EPA is proposing this change to better
ensure that renters receive this important information so that they can
decide to take any needed steps to reduce their exposure to lead in
drinking water.
    Contents of public education materials. Under the LCRR, the public
education materials must include mandatory language on the health
effects of lead, information about sources of lead, steps consumers can
take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water, an explanation of
why there are elevated levels of lead in the system's drinking water
and what the system is doing about it, as well as other information.
The LCRR allows water systems to change some of the mandatory language
with State approval. EPA is proposing to revise this provision in the
LCRI to allow States to approve changes to the content requirements of
the public education materials only if the State determines the changes
are more protective of human health. EPA is proposing this revision to
ensure that information provided in public education materials is most
protective of human health and in recognition that some water systems
may need to provide more tailored information to their community in
order to provide greater public health protection (e.g., systems with
many LSLs, GRRs, or lead status unknown service lines). If the system
has LSLs, the LCRR requires the materials to also include information
about LSLs. EPA is proposing to revise this to require that systems
with LSLs, GRR service lines, or unknown service lines, rather than
just systems with LSLs, include information about LSLs, GRR service
lines, or unknown service lines in the public education materials. In
addition to the LSL-related information required in the LCRR, EPA is
proposing that systems must include information about replacing GRR
service lines and identifying the material of unknowns as well as
information on how to access the service line replacement plan. In
addition, EPA is proposing to require systems with known lead
connectors and unknown connectors to include information about
accessing the service line inventory. EPA is also proposing to require
that the public education materials include instructions for consumers
to notify the water system if they think the material classification is
incorrect (e.g., if the service line is classified as non-lead in the
inventory but is actually lead). EPA is proposing these revisions to
make the public education materials more informative for persons served
by LSLs, GRR service lines, unknown service lines, known lead
connectors, or unknown connectors and thereby provide greater public
health protection.
    EPA is also proposing requiring public education materials to
explain that using a filter certified by an American National Standards
Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead is effective in reducing
lead levels in drinking water. Water systems would need to include this
information among the other steps the consumer can take to reduce their
exposure to lead in drinking water. EPA is proposing this change to
ensure that consumers are made aware that filters are an effective
option for reducing lead in drinking water. This proposed addition to
the public education materials is also responsive to requests from many
stakeholders during the LCRI environmental justice meetings (USEPA,
2023h; USEPA, 2023i) and LCRR review (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255),
asking that EPA provide recommendations on the use of filters. Some
participants in the LCRI environmental justice meetings asked that EPA
recommend that consumers served by LSLs use filters until LSLs are
replaced (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i), while some commenters during the
LCRR review stated that public education materials should encourage
consumers more broadly to use filters certified to reduce lead in
drinking water (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255). EPA is not proposing to
require public education materials to recommend that all consumers, or
consumers served by LSLs, use a filter certified to reduce lead. Such a
recommendation would be made regardless of system-wide lead levels or
lead levels at an individual site. EPA notes that many factors can
influence lead levels in drinking water, such as CCT performance, water
use habits, and sources of lead in drinking water.

Because of the various factors that influence lead tap water levels,
EPA expects that a recommendation that all or a subset of consumers use
a filter would lead to inconsistencies, confusion, and possibly a
reduction in confidence in tap water even where lead is not present or
remains very low. See section V.B.6. of this document for further
discussion of language concerning use of filters certified to reduce
lead in drinking water. EPA is proposing that water systems include
this information about filters among the list of steps to reduce
exposure to lead in drinking water in all the public education
materials under Sec.  141.85. EPA is also proposing that systems with
multiple lead action level exceedances make filters available (see
section V.I. of this document) and include information about how
consumers can obtain filters.
    In addition to proposing to require information about filters in
public education, EPA is proposing to require water systems to include
other options in the list of steps to reduce exposure to lead in
drinking water. Water systems would be required to encourage regular
cleaning of faucet aerators as an additional option in this list. EPA
is also proposing to require water systems to emphasize additional
measures to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water for pregnant
people, infants, and young children since they are at higher risk of
adverse health effects from lead exposure. EPA is also proposing to
require that water systems provide additional information about
flushing the pipes, including noting that consumers served by LSLs and
GRR service lines may need to flush for longer periods. EPA is also
proposing to require systems to include contact information for the
State and/or local health department so that consumers can contact them
for more information about lead. EPA is proposing these additions to
the public education materials to make consumers aware of more actions
they can take to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. For
information on how EPA is proposing to revise the mandatory lead health
effects language, see section V.H.5. below.
    Under the LCRR, CWSs are required to include information about how
consumers can get their water tested for lead in public education
materials, but NTNCWSs are not. Similarly, the LCRR also only requires
CWSs, and not NTNCWSs, to include information about lead in plumbing
components in public education materials. EPA is proposing to require
all water systems to include information in the public education
materials about lead in plumbing components and about how consumers can
get their water tested, including information about the proposed
provision of supplemental monitoring and notification in Sec.
141.85(c) that is described earlier in this section. EPA is proposing
these changes to ensure that consumers, including those served by
NTNCWSs, are more informed and thereby provide greater public health
protection.
    Many stakeholders also questioned why the public education
requirements are triggered by the lead action level if it is not a
health-based level. EPA requires water systems to provide public
education materials to consumers after a lead action level exceedance
so that people are informed about the ways to reduce their exposure to
lead in their drinking water and thereby can prevent adverse health
effects. EPA introduced the public education requirements in 1991
stating that while water system actions including CCT and LSLR are
expected to reduce lead drinking water levels, ``there are situations
where elevated lead levels will persist at consumers' taps during or
even after these efforts'' (56 FR 26500, USEPA, 1991). EPA further
noted that the public education requirements supplement the other
actions water systems take to reduce lead levels after a lead action
level exceedance. While EPA has since added additional public education
requirements that are not based on a system's 90th percentile lead
level, public education after a lead action level exceedance is still
warranted. A system-wide lead action level exceedance may be indicative
of higher lead levels system-wide and prompts water systems to take
actions such as installing or re-optimizing OCCT to reduce lead
drinking water levels. In such cases, system-wide public education
which includes a statement about the lead action level exceedance, the
health risks of lead, and steps individuals can take to reduce their
exposure is appropriate.
    However, the Agency agrees that consumers should also be aware of
the risks from lead exposure regardless of lead levels in the system.
The LCRR requires many actions to educate consumers about lead in
drinking water irrespective of whether or not a system has an action
level exceedance for lead, such as the following: public education
provided with consumers' individual lead tap sampling results; public
education notifying consumers if they are served by an LSL, GRR service
line, or unknown service line; and public education to persons affected
by a disturbance to an LSL, GRR service line, or unknown service line.
These include a statement of the health effects of lead, steps
consumers can take to reduce their exposure to lead, among other
information. The Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), which is distributed
to all consumers of a community water system, must also include an
informational statement about lead regardless of whether there is a
lead action level exceedance (see section V.L.1. of this document). For
the LCRI, EPA is proposing additional improvements for more proactive
public education that make it clear that there is no safe level of lead
in drinking water. For example, EPA is proposing requiring that the
consumer notice of lead tap sampling results be delivered within three
days regardless of whether the results exceed the lead action level or
not (see section V.H.3. of this document). EPA is also proposing that
the lead health effects language required in public education, public
notification, and the Consumer Confidence Report explicitly state that
there is no safe level of lead in drinking water (see section V.H.5. of
this document). EPA is also proposing that water systems that fail to
meet the mandatory service line replacement rate conduct public
outreach activities (see section V.H.2. of this document).
Public Education for Small System Compliance Flexibility Point-of-Use
Devices
    EPA is proposing moving the public education requirements for small
water system compliance flexibility point-of-use devices from Sec.
141.85 to Sec.  141.93. EPA is proposing this change so that the small
system compliance flexibility provisions are all in the same rule
section (see section V.G. of this document).
5. Requirements for Language Updates and Accessibility
Lead Health Effects Language
    Under the LCRR, the following lead health effects language is
required to be included in public education, public notification, and
the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR).
    Exposure to lead in drinking water can cause serious health effects
in all age groups. Infants and children can have decreases in IQ and
attention span. Lead exposure can lead to new learning and behavior
problems or exacerbate existing learning and behavior problems. The
children of women who are exposed to lead before or during pregnancy
can have increased risk of these adverse health effects. Adults can
have increased risks of heart

disease, high blood pressure, kidney or nervous system problems.
    EPA is proposing to require the language to begin with a statement
that there is no safe level of lead in drinking water. During the LCRI
external engagements and LCRR review, stakeholders expressed concerns
about water systems with detectable lead levels communicating that
drinking water is ``safe'' because lead levels are below the action
level. Some stakeholders have also stated that water systems downplay
the urgency of lead action level exceedances by providing statements to
consumers that the system meets all EPA requirements. EPA's proposed
additional language would help address these concerns by communicating
clearly that there is no level of lead without health risks. EPA is
also proposing revisions to clarify that the language provides some and
not all the health effects of lead, and to encourage consumers to
consult their health care provider for more information about their
risks. Health care providers are an important, trusted source of
information about lead for consumers and are influential in encouraging
consumers to take actions, particularly for those at highest risk from
lead in drinking water (Jennings and Duncan, 2017; Griffin and
Dunwoody, 2000). EPA is proposing these changes in response to concerns
stakeholders shared during the proposed LCRI external engagements and
LCRR review that the language does not disclose all the known health
risks of lead exposure. In addition, the current language notes the
risk to all age groups and EPA is proposing adding language to
highlight the risks to pregnant people, infants (both formula-fed and
breastfed), and young children. This revision is being proposed in
response to stakeholder recommendations that the language emphasize
health risks to all age groups, especially fetuses, formula-fed
infants, and young children. EPA included pregnant people to ensure
that those through which the exposure is occurring to the developing
fetus are highlighted so they can easily identify themselves as an at-
risk group. EPA is also proposing revisions to simplify the language so
that it is easier for consumers to understand. EPA is also proposing to
make the language gender neutral for greater inclusivity. EPA is
proposing the following revised mandatory lead health effects language
and has underlined the additions to illustrate changes from the LCRR
text:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.081

    The same wording would be used in the health effects portion of the
public notification of a lead action level exceedance and of treatment
technique violations as well as the CCR.
Translation Requirements
    Under the LCRR, water systems serving a large proportion of non-
English speaking consumers must include in public education materials a
translated statement about the importance of the materials, or they
must include contact information for consumers to obtain a translated
copy or translation assistance from the water system. The State
determines what is considered a large proportion (Sec.  141.85(b)(1)).
    EPA is proposing to update the current requirement in the LCRR for
translation of public education materials under 40 CFR 141.85 to ensure
greater protection of consumers with limited English proficiency.
Individuals with limited English proficiency include those who do not
speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability
to read, write, speak, or understand English. EPA is proposing to
require water systems to include in all the public education materials
under 40 CFR 141.85 information in the appropriate language regarding
the importance of the materials. Systems would also be required to
include contact information for persons served by the water system to
obtain a translated copy of the materials, request assistance in the
appropriate language, or the system must provide materials translated
into the appropriate language. Since 1991, EPA has required public
education materials under the LCR to be communicated in other languages
in communities where a significant proportion of the population speaks
a language other than English (56 FR 26555, USEPA, 1991). Some systems
provide a translated statement of the importance of the CCR in multiple
languages (e.g., Boston, Massachusetts; Dearborn, Michigan) (MWRA,
2020; City of Dearborn, 2019). There are also organizations, such as
Clean Water Fund in Chelsea, Massachusetts, that have translated
materials and offered

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

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

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

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

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

J. Lead Sampling at Schools and Child Care Facilities

    The LCRR requires CWSs to conduct public education and sample for
lead in the schools and licensed child care facilities they serve. EPA
promulgated these requirements in the LCRR as part of the public
education treatment technique in order to educate schools and child
care facilities about the risk from lead in premise plumbing, the
importance of sampling for lead in drinking water, provide them with
experience with lead testing, and help them make decisions to mitigate
lead risks, including establishing their own testing programs (86 FR
4232, USEPA, 2021a; USEPA, 2020b). This sampling effort is not a
replacement for comprehensive testing as detailed in the 3Ts. In the
final LCRR preamble, EPA noted that large buildings, such as schools,
can have a higher potential for elevated lead levels. This is because,
even when large buildings are served by a water system with well-
operated OCCT, they may have lead in drinking water due to lead in
premise plumbing and inconsistent water use patterns (e.g., summer,
holiday, or other breaks) that can result in longer stagnation times
(86 FR 4232, USEPA, 2021a). However, exposure can be mitigated through
public education and voluntary remediation actions to address lead from
premise plumbing within those facilities, and accordingly, EPA
promulgated requirements for CWSs to conduct public education and
sampling for lead in schools and licensed child care facilities. EPA is
authorized under SDWA to establish NPDWRs that are legally enforceable
standards that apply to public water systems as defined in SDWA section
1401(4) and 40 CFR 141.2. EPA does not have the authority under SDWA
section 1412 to require schools and child care facilities that are not
regulated as public water systems to act under an NPDWR.
    The LCRR requires CWSs to compile a list of all the schools and
licensed child care facilities they serve and to update the list at
least once every five years. Annually, CWSs must provide materials on
the health effects of lead to all the schools and child care facilities
on the list. During each year of the first five-year cycle, CWSs must
conduct outreach to at least 20 percent of the total elementary schools
and child care facilities served by that system to schedule sampling
and provide a copy of EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water
Toolkit (USEPA, 2018). If an elementary school or child care facility
declines the offer for sampling or does not respond to at least two
separate outreach attempts, the CWS may count the elementary school or
child care facility as part of the minimum 20 percent of facilities
sampled per year for compliance purposes. The CWSs must include the
number of facilities that decline or do not respond to the offer to
sample in the annual report to the State under Sec.  141.90(i). During
the first five-year cycle, CWSs must annually notify all secondary
schools that they may request sampling and must sample at any secondary
school that requests it. After the first five-year cycle, the CWS must
sample any school or child care facility that requests sampling. The
CWS is not required to sample an individual school or child care
facility more than once in any five-year period.
    CWSs are required to collect a minimum of five samples per school
and two samples per child care facility. Results must be delivered to
the sampled schools and child care facilities as soon as practicable
but no later than 30 days after receipt of the results, along with
information about remediation options. CWSs must also submit results to
the State and to State and local health departments annually. The LCRR
also includes a waiver provision for States to waive the requirements
of Sec.  141.92 for CWSs to sample in schools and child care facilities
if they are sampled under an alternative State or local law or program.
EPA did not include any provisions in the LCRR to allow CWSs to count
sampling conducted prior to the LCRR compliance date towards the
required sampling.
1. Proposed LCRI Requirements
    EPA is proposing to maintain most of the LCRR requirements for CWSs
to conduct public education and sample in schools and child care
facilities. In addition, EPA is proposing significant changes to the
organization of Sec.  141.92 to help clarify the requirements. EPA
intends for these proposed changes to ease interpretation and
implementation of the requirements for both States and water systems.
EPA is proposing a new section in Sec.  141.92(a)(2) to clarify that
the requirements in Sec.  141.92 do not apply to schools and child care
facilities that are regulated as NTNCWSs. The LCRR requires CWSs to
fulfill the requirements of Sec.  141.92 in schools and child care
facilities that were constructed prior to January 1, 2014 or the date
the State adopted standards that meet the definition of lead free in
accordance with section 1417 of SDWA, whichever is earlier. EPA is
clarifying in Sec.  141.92(a)(1) that CWSs are not required to sample
in schools and child care facilities that underwent full plumbing
replacement after the applicable date. Section 141.92(b) outlines the
proposed revisions to requirements for developing a list of the schools
and child care facilities served by CWSs. While the LCRR requires CWSs
to develop a list of the schools and child care facilities they serve
and either send an updated list to the State or certify that the list
has not changed, there is no requirement in the LCRR for the initial
list to be submitted to the State. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
require that the initial list must also be sent to the State in Sec.
141.92(b)(1). EPA encourages CWSs to work with local school districts,
State departments of education, and child care licensing agencies to
identify schools and child care facilities in their service areas.
    EPA is proposing to maintain different requirements for CWS
outreach to elementary schools and child care facilities compared to
secondary schools because children under the age of six are at the
greatest risk of adverse health effects due to lead exposure (CDC,

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

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

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

K. Reporting and Recordkeeping

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

2. State Recordkeeping Requirements
    EPA is proposing several changes to State recordkeeping
requirements to conform with changes proposed elsewhere in the LCRI.
Because EPA is proposing to eliminate the trigger level and require
mandatory full service line replacement, EPA is also proposing to
remove recordkeeping requirements for any State determinations of lead
service line replacement goal rates. EPA is also proposing to change
instances of LSLR to ``service line replacement'' and ``lead and
galvanized requiring replacement service lines'' to reflect the
proposed mandatory full service line replacement requirements. EPA is
also proposing to clarify that the requirement for States to maintain
records of system-specific determinations for some NTNCWSs and CWSs to
collect non-first draw samples refer to samples that do not meet the
minimum six-hour stagnation time.
    EPA is also proposing changes to clarify existing requirements
regarding the length of the records retention period. EPA requires each
State with primacy enforcement responsibility to retain records listed
under Sec.  142.14(d) for not less than 12 years. States must maintain
records of all currently applicable or most recent State
determinations, including all supporting information and technical
basis for each decision, under Sec.  142.14(d)(8). Revisions to the LCR
in 2000 added a requirement that if no change is made to the State
determinations under Sec.  142.14(d)(8) during the 12-year retention
period, that the State must retain the record until a new decision,
determination, or designation has been issued. EPA is proposing edits
to Sec.  142.14(d)(8) in the LCRI to clarify the existing record
retention requirement and improve implementation. EPA is also proposing
to change the order of provisions in Sec.  141.14(d)(8) to improve
readability.
    EPA is also proposing to move requirements for States to maintain
records of service line replacement plans, service line inventories,
and compliance sampling pools to Sec.  142.14(d)(9) with other reports
and information submitted under Sec.  141.90. EPA is proposing this
change to improve organization and clarity because these records are
not State determinations. Because EPA is proposing to require systems
to complete a baseline service line material inventory by the rule
compliance date, EPA is also proposing to that States maintain records
on these baseline inventories in addition to the initial service line
inventory and any required updates to the inventory.
    EPA is also seeking comment on whether States should be required to
maintain documentation related to the distribution and site assessments
conducted by water system. EPA is also seeking comment if States should
be required to maintain documentation of determinations of more
stringent implementation, including but not limited to conditions or
approvals related to reduced compliance monitoring and additional
information required to conduct a review or designate OCCT. See section
IX. of this document.
3. State Reporting Requirements
    EPA is proposing two changes to quarterly State reporting to
conform with the changes proposed elsewhere in the LCRI. In the LCRR,
States are required to report summary numbers of LSLs, GRR service
lines, and unknown service lines, as reported by systems in their
mandatory service line inventories. EPA proposes in the LCRI to expand
the inventories to include lead connectors and non-lead service lines
and proposes that States report totals for these additional categories
per system. In the LCRR, goal-based LSLR was introduced in addition to
mandatory LSLR upon an action level exceedance and required States to
report the date that systems must begin LSLR for all systems required
to do so. As the LCRI proposes mandatory service line replacement
irrespective of measured lead levels, EPA is proposing that States
instead report the calculated replacement deadline for each system
under either the proposed mandatory 10-year deadline, shortened
deadlines, or under proposed options for deferred deadlines. In
addition, EPA proposes to require States to report the number and type
of service lines replaced each year, as reported by systems.
    EPA is also proposing to consolidate reporting requirements in
Sec.  142.15(c)(4)(i) and (iii). Under LCRR, EPA removed dates
differentiating reports submitted by States to EPA prior to January 1,
2000, and those submitted after January 1, 2002, resulting in some
duplicative requirements. Specifically, EPA is proposing to maintain
requirements for States to report the date of CCT and source water
treatment related milestones (e.g., the date CCT study results are
submitted to the State, date of OCCT installation is complete) and
removing duplicative requirements such as reporting the systems with
action level exceedances given that States are required under LCRR to
report the 90th percentile values of all water systems in addition to
the first and last days of the tap monitoring period. EPA views these
reporting elements as necessary for EPA enforcement and oversight.
    EPA is also proposing a change to State reporting to implement
section 1414(c)(2)(D) of SDWA, as amended by the WIIN Act. This
provision requires EPA to issue a Tier 1 public notification of a
system's lead action level exceedance if a system fails to do so;
however, EPA would need to know of the action level exceedance in order
to conduct the notice. Therefore, EPA proposes that States submit the
90th percentile lead level for any system with an action level
exceedance within 15 days following the end of each applicable tap
monitoring period or within 24 hours of receiving notification of a
lead action level exceedance from a water system, whichever is earlier.
    EPA acknowledges that a broader reporting requirement for
compliance monitoring data in 40 CFR part 141 was proposed as part of
the CCR Rule Revisions and was subject to public notice and comment (88
FR 20092, USEPA, 2023n). EPA is proposing specific State reporting
requirements in the LCRI as described above because final action has
not yet been taken on the proposed CCR Rule Revisions. EPA intends to
consider if any of the proposed LCRI State reporting requirements are
necessary pending final action on the proposed CCR Rule Revisions.

L. Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141

1. Consumer Confidence Report (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart O)
    All CWSs are required by SDWA to provide their customers with an
annual Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), a drinking water quality
report that summarizes the state of their drinking water supply. The
CCR must include information about the water system, sources of water,
detected contaminants including lead, compliance with drinking water
rules including the lead and copper rules, as well as other
information. CCR requirements are described in the CCR Rule (40 CFR
part 141, subpart O) which is part of the 1996 Right to Know provisions
of SDWA. On April 5, 2023, EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to strengthen the CCR Rule (88 FR 20092, USEPA, 2023n). The
CCR is currently an annual report; however, the Proposed CCR Rule
Revisions include a proposed requirement for water systems serving more
than 10,000 people to provide the report biannually. The Proposed CCR
Rule Revisions include updates to make the CCR more

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.082

    During the public meetings on environmental justice considerations
for the proposed LCRI (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i) and in written
public comments submitted to the LCRI docket (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2022-
0801), EPA heard support for including information about the risks of