and treatment requirements in response to higher measured fifth liter
tap sample lead levels.

  Exhibit 6-23--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs for the Low Cost Scenario at 3% Discount Rate Current
                                   Rule, Proposed LCRR, and Fifth Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed LCRR                Fifth liter option
      Benefit/cost category         Current LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $376,857,000    $508,762,000    $131,905,000    $543,079,000    $166,222,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     370,631,000     481,688,000     111,057,000     512,176,000     141,545,000
Total Annual Benefits...........      12,391,000     223,472,000     211,081,000     428,597,000     416,206,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Exhibit 6-24--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs for the Low Cost Scenario at 7% Discount Rate Current
                                   Rule, Proposed LCRR, and Fifth Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed LCRR                Fifth liter option
      Benefit/cost category         Current LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $359,230,000    $489,253,000    $130,023,000    $523,524,000    $164,294,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     353,067,000     461,889,000     108,822,000     491,005,000     137,938,000
Total Annual Benefits...........       2,059,000      38,671,000      36,612,000      75,895,000      73,836,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Exhibit 6-25--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs for the High Cost Scenario at 3% Discount Rate Current
                                   Rule, Proposed LCRR, and Fifth Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed LCRR                Fifth liter option
      Benefit/cost category         Current LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $438,408,000    $708,314,000    $269,906,000    $762,023,000    $323,615,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     421,766,000     663,931,000     242,165,000     717,537,000     295,771,000
Total Annual Benefits...........     229,397,000     750,556,000     521,159,000     946,051,000     716,654,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Exhibit 6-26--Estimated National Annualized Rule Costs for the High Cost Scenario at 7% Discount Rate Current
                                   Rule, Proposed LCRR, and Fifth Liter Option
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed LCRR                Fifth liter option
      Benefit/cost category         Current LCR  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       total           Total        Incremental        Total        Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........    $435,144,000    $721,282,000    $286,138,000    $777,471,000    $342,327,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........     414,405,000     672,615,000     258,210,000     728,865,000     314,460,000
Total Annual Benefits...........      45,319,000     142,778,000      97,459,000     178,024,000     132,705,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Reporting of LSL-Related Information
    The EPA is proposing to require water systems to make their LSL
inventory publicly available with a locational identifier associated
with each LSL. The EPA is not proposing that address-level information
must be provided to protect information regarding real property (see
section II.E.3 of this notice). Public disclosure of the LSL inventory
would increase transparency and consumer awareness of the extent of
LSLs in the distribution system. The EPA is considering an additional
option in which systems with LSLs would be required to make the address
associated with each LSL publicly available. Available information
indicates that prospective buyers and renters value reductions in risks
associated with LSLs. Public disclosure of LSL locations can create an
incentive, through increased property values or home sale incentives,
to replace LSLs.
    The EPA anticipates that the costs between these two options would
be similar because the system would use the same method for publicly
providing and maintaining information regarding its LSL information and
LSL locational information, e.g., posting information to the water
system's website. The EPA anticipates the benefits between the address-
level and location identifier options would be similar.
4. Small System Flexibility
    As discussed in section III.E of this notice, the proposed LCRR
includes significant flexibility for CWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer
people, and all

NTNCWSs. If these PWSs have an action level exceedance, they can choose
from three options (modeled in the cost-benefit model) to reduce the
concentration of lead in their water. These options are: (1) Replace
seven percent of their baseline number of LSLs per year until all LSLs
are replaced; (2) optimize existing CCT or install new CCT; (3) Provide
POU devices to all customers. The EPA is proposing the above three
flexibilities for NTNCWS and an additional option of replacement of all
lead bearing plumbing fixtures at every tap where water could be used
for human consumption.
    The EPA is considering limiting small system flexibility to CWSs
that serve 3,300 or fewer people and all NTNCWSs. Exhibits 6-27 and 6-
28 provide the range of the estimated incremental annualized rule costs
and benefits, under both the low and high cost scenarios, for the
proposed LCRR and the alternative small system flexibility option at a
3% and 7% discount rate, respectively.

Exhibit 6-27--Estimated National Annualized Incremental Rule Costs at 3% Discount Rate for the Proposed LCRR and
                                   Alternative Small System Flexibility Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Proposed LCRR: Small system      Alternative small system
                                                   flexibility for CWSs serving      flexibility option: CWSs
                                                      <=10,000 people and all     serving <=3,300 people and all
              Benefit/cost category                           NTNCWSs                         NTNCWSs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Low cost        High cost       Low cost        High cost
                                                     scenario        scenario        scenario        scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........................    $131,987,000    $269,989,000    $134,385,000    $292,863,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........................     111,057,000     242,165,000     112,734,000     260,053,000
Total Annual Benefits...........................     211,081,000     521,159,000     215,070,000     548,382,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Exhibit 6-28--National Annualized Incremental Rule Costs at 7% Discount Rate for the Proposed LCRR and
                                   Alternative Small System Flexibility Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Proposed LCRR: Small system      Alternative small system
                                                   flexibility for CWSs serving      flexibility option: CWSs
                                                      <=10,000 people and all     serving <=3,300 people and all
              Benefit/cost category                           NTNCWSs                         NTNCWSs
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Low cost        High cost       Low cost        High cost
                                                     scenario        scenario        scenario        scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Rule Costs.........................    $130,104,000    $286,219,000    $132,748,000    $314,163,000
Total Annual PWS Costs..........................     108,822,000     258,210,000     110,742,000     280,731,000
Total Annual Benefits...........................      36,612,000      97,459,000      37,310,000     102,741,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Cost-Benefit Determination

    The Administrator has determined that the quantified and non-
quantified benefits of the proposed LCR revisions justify the costs.
    Under section 1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA,
when the EPA proposes a NPDWR that includes a treatment technique, the
Administrator shall publish and seek public comment on an analysis of
the health risk reduction benefits and costs likely to be experienced
as the result of compliance with the treatment technique and
alternative treatment techniques that are being considered. Sections
VI.A through F of this notice summarize the results of this proposed
rule analysis. As indicated in section VI.E of this notice, the
monetized costs and benefits result in net annualized incremental
benefits that range from $79 to $251 million, under the low and high
cost scenarios at a 3 percent discount rate. Under the low and high
cost scenarios at a 7 percent discount rate, the net annualized
incremental benefits range from a negative $91 to negative $189
million.
    In addition to the monetized benefits of the proposed rule, a
number of potentially significant non-quantified and non-monetized
sources of benefit exist that further strengthen the determination of
benefits justifying costs. The harmful impacts of lead exposure
include: Cardiovascular effects (both morbidity and mortality effects),
renal effects, reproductive and developmental effects, immunological
effects, neurological effects, and cancer. The EPA has only monetized a
portion of the benefits associated with neurodevelopmental endpoints.
Although the EPA did estimate the reductions to adult blood lead levels
that could potentially result from changes to LSL and CCT status, the
Agency did not quantify or monetize the potential benefits associated
with reductions in adverse cardiovascular effects, renal effects,
reproductive effects, immunological effects, neurological effects, and
cancer. The EPA analysis has not quantified the positive impacts from
increases in consumer averting behavior and the potential for customer
initiated LSLR due to the proposed rule's additional lead public
education requirements that target all potential affected consumers
directly, schools and child care facilities, health agencies, and
people living in homes with LSLs; and the development of LSL
inventories with the requirement for public access to the information.
The analysis was also unable to quantify the potentially significant
benefits of reducing lead concentrations in drinking water from:
Households without LSLs in water systems where the proposed rule
triggered an installation or re-optimization of CCT; and all households
in systems implementing small improvement in CCT because of the ``find-
and-fix'' proposed rule requirements.

VII. Request for Comment

    The EPA is requesting comments upon all aspects of the proposed
revisions described in this notice. While all comments relevant to the
LCR revisions proposed in this notice will be considered by the EPA,
comments on the following issues will be especially helpful to the EPA
in developing a final

rule. The EPA specifically requests comment on the following issues.

General Matters

    The EPA is requesting comment on the overall framework for the
proposed LCR revisions. Has the EPA developed proposed revisions that
address the variability in conditions among the regulated water systems
that effect the levels of lead that may be present in drinking water?
Do the proposed revisions to the LCR target the appropriate treatment
technique actions to prevent known or anticipated adverse health
effects to the extent feasible in accordance with the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA)?
    The EPA requests comment on the complexity of the regulatory
requirements that result from targeting different actions for different
types of water systems and challenges States and water systems will
encounter.
    The EPA requests comment on ways that the proposed LCR revisions
could be simplified and burden, including paperwork burden, could be
reduced while still assuring adverse health effects are prevented to
the extent feasible. The EPA solicits comment on ways it can improve
the ability of State or Federal government to enforce this rule. The
EPA solicits comment on ways it can improve the ability of State or
Federal government to assist water systems with compliance.

Trigger Level

    The EPA requests comment on the proposed trigger level of 10
[micro]g/L and the actions water systems must take if they exceed this
trigger level. Does this level represent an appropriate 90th percentile
level at which to require systems to initiate progressive actions to
reduce drinking water lead levels? The EPA requests comment on other
90th percentile level thresholds that would be reasonable for water
systems to initiate progressive actions to reduce drinking water lead
levels.

Lead Service Line Requirements

    The EPA requests comment on the feasibility of creating initial
lead service line inventories by the compliance date, which is three
years after publication of the final rule, and if a different frequency
(other than annual) would be more appropriate for inventory updates.
The EPA requests comment on whether additional requirements or guidance
are needed relating to the content or format of inventories. The EPA
also requests comment on the actions that system with limited records
can take to improve their understanding of the number and location of
lead service lines in their water system.
    The EPA request comment on whether small water systems should be
exempt from the requirement to prepare a LSLR plan concurrent with
their LSL inventory, given that they may opt not to select LSLR as a
compliance option if the action level is exceeded.
    The EPA requests comment on including galvanized pipe in lead
service line (LSL) inventories and in goal-based and mandatory lead
service line replacement (LSLR) rates under the proposed LCR revisions.
    The EPA requests comment on the treatment of unknown service lines
in the inventory.
    The EPA requests comment on whether the Agency should require water
systems to distribute education materials to homes with unknown service
lines to inform them of the potential for their line to be made of lead
and the actions they can take to reduce their exposure to drinking
water lead.
    The EPA requests comment on proposed revisions to the lead service
line replacement program requirements.
    The EPA requests comment on the goal-based lead service line
requirement for systems that exceed the trigger level. Does the goal
based LSLR requirement provide adequate incentives for water systems to
achieve meaningful reductions in their lead service line inventory?
Does the goal based program enable systems to effectively incorporate
LSLR into their infrastructure replacement programs? The EPA requests
comment on what criteria must be met for the EPA to establish a federal
goal rate for water system under Sec.  142.19.
    The EPA also requests comment upon the feasibility of replacing a
minimum of three percent of the lead service lines a year for the
systems that exceed the action level. The EPA requests comment on
whether the number of lines required to be replaced should be three
percent of the number of lead service lines plus the number of unknown
service lines at the time the systems exceeds the action level.
    The EPA requests comment on the feasibility for a water system to
replace its portion of an LSL within 45 days of being notified that a
customer has replaced the customer portion of an LSL. Should this time
frame be longer? Should this time frame be shorter? The EPA also
requests comment on whether such replacement by a water system should
be mandatory or voluntary.
    The EPA requests comment on how water systems that are conducting
LSLR can identify and prioritize replacements at the locations that
have the highest lead levels and/or the most susceptible populations.
The EPA requests comment on whether to require water systems to
describe in their LSLR plan, how LSLR will be prioritized or to require
a prioritization plan at the time LSLR is compelled.
    The EPA is requesting comment on the appropriateness of requiring
two years of tap sample monitoring before water systems may stop LSLR.
Under this proposal, corrosion control treatment (CCT) or re-
optimization of CCT may not immediately reduce lead levels at the tap.
The EPA proposes that two years of monitoring would be enough time to
evaluate and ensure these measures consistently reduce lead to meet the
action level.
    The EPA requests comment on requiring systems with LSLs to make
publicly available the exact address of the LSL in the inventory
instead of a location identifier (street, intersection, landmark) as
proposed. As discussed in section VI of this notice, the EPA estimates
that the costs and benefits of this alternative would be similar to the
proposal.
    The EPA request comment on the appropriateness of pitcher filters
for risk mitigation after LSLR or LSL disturbances given that the
customer would be responsible for operation and maintenance.

Corrosion Control Treatment

    The EPA is requesting comment on the proposed CCT re-optimization
requirements. EPA requests comment upon the potential actions water
systems could take to adjust their corrosion control treatment and how
they should work with the State to determine if adjustments to the
treatment would better optimize corrosion control.

Tap Sampling

    The EPA is requesting comment on an alternative revision to the
LCR's existing tap sample collection method provisions. In promulgating
the LCR, the EPA noted ``the rule contains other procedures to ensure
that excessive lead and/or copper levels would be detected in
monitoring by requiring, for example, sampling of the first liter of
water from the tap after water has been standing for at least six
hours, conditions under which higher than average contaminant levels
are likely to occur'' (58 FR 26514). The EPA continues to believe that
first draw sampling following a 6-hour stagnation period is an
effective technique to determine when optimal corrosion control
treatment is being maintained. However, the EPA notes

that research using sequential tap sample collection techniques on
homes with LSLs indicates that a first draw sample may not represent
the significant contributions of LSLs (Lytle et al., 2019). The EPA
evaluated the feasibility of conducting sequential sampling techniques
for every tap sample site for the public water systems that are subject
to the LCR. The EPA finds it is not feasible due to the complexity of
the sequential sampling technique, the number of samples that must be
analyzed and the difficulty of interpreting the results from multiple
tap samples. However, the EPA is requesting comment on whether water
systems with lead service lines should be required to collect tap
samples that are representative of water that was in contact with lead
service lines during the 6-hour stagnation period.
    The EPA requests comment on an alternative tap sampling technique
for sampling locations with LSLs. The EPA requests comment on requiring
tap samplers to collect the first gallon of water from the tap
following the stagnation period (referred to as the fifth liter), then
to collect a one-liter sample for analysis. The sampler would be
instructed to pour out the gallon container or to use it for other
purposes (e.g., watering plants) and to submit the one-liter tap sample
for analysis. The EPA finds this approach would be more representative
of lead concentrations in service lines (Del Toral, 2013) and would be
more likely to identify a greater number of water systems that would be
required to take action to address elevated levels of lead. The EPA has
included an analysis of the costs and benefits of this option in
Section VI of this notice and Chapter 9 of the Economic Analysis of the
Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a). The EPA also
requests comment on how the EPA could develop tap sample protocols that
would allow for collection of a first draw copper sample and a fifth
liter lead tap sample during a single tap sample event. The EPA
requests data that demonstrate collecting a tap sample liter (i.e., 5th
liter) other than a first draw is more representative of water that has
been in contact with a lead service line during the six hour stagnation
period.
    The EPA is proposing to require that all water systems that change
their source water or make significant treatment changes obtain
approval from their primacy agency prior to making the change. The EPA
expects that in addition to evaluating and mitigating the impacts of
the source water change or treatment change on corrosion control, many
primacy agencies will require the water systems to conduct more
frequent tap sampling following the change in treatment or source. The
EPA requests comment on whether the regulation should specify a minimum
tap sampling frequency of once every six months or once per year
following the source water change or significant treatment change.

Testing in Schools and Child Care Facilities

    The EPA requests comment on whether it should revise the rule to
require community water systems (CWSs) to offer to collect samples from
schools and child care facilities every five years or to collect
samples from a school or a child care facility only if requested. The
CWS would still be required to provide the schools and child care
facilities information on the health effects and sources of lead in
drinking water, and the 3Ts guidance. Under this approach, CWS would be
able to respond to requests for sampling in a way that allows the water
system to spread out the cost burden over multiple years (i.e., delay
fulfilment of requests to future years) if the water system samples at
a minimum of five percent of schools and child care facilities each
year. Additionally, a facility could decline the offer. The EPA has
included an analysis of the costs and benefits of this option in
section VI of this notice and Chapter 9 of the Economic Analysis of the
Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a).

Small System Flexibilities

    The EPA is proposing that small system flexibilities be allowed for
CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons and all NTNCWS. The EPA request
comment on whether this flexibility is needed by systems serving
between 3,301 and 10,000 persons and whether a different threshold is
more appropriate. EPA requests comment on whether different
flexibilities would be more appropriate for small systems whether
defined as water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons or 3,300 or
fewer persons.

Public Education and Outreach

    The EPA requests comment on whether the Agency should require water
systems to distribute education materials to homes with unknown service
line types to inform them of the potential for their line to be made of
lead and the actions they can take to reduce their exposure to drinking
water lead.
    The EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of required
outreach activities a water system would conduct if they do not meet
the goal LSLR rate in response to a trigger level exceedance. The EPA
also requests comments on other actions or additional outreach efforts
water systems could take to meet their LSLR goal rate.
    The EPA requests comment on the appropriateness, frequency, and
content of required outreach to State and local health agencies and
whether the requirement should apply only to a subset of the country's
community water systems.

Economic Analysis

    The EPA is soliciting comment on all aspects of the analysis for
this rule. The agency offers a fulsome discussion on assumptions,
models and related uncertainties in the regulatory impact analysis. In
particular, the EPA requests comment on the five drivers of costs
identified including rate of LSLR in its economic analysis. EPA
requests comments on whether this estimated rate of lead service lines
being replaced is appropriate. The EPA also solicits comment on: (1)
The existing number of LSLs in PWSs; (2) the number of PWS above the AL
or TL under the current and proposed monitoring requirements; (3) the
cost of installing and optimizing corrosion control treatment (CCT);
(4) the effectiveness of CCT in mitigating lead concentrations; and (5)
the cost of lead service line replacement cost of lead service line
replacement, cost of CCT, effectiveness of CCT. In addition to these
cost drivers, the EPA solicits comment on the assumptions regarding
labor required to comply with this rule, including labor required to
collect and analyze samples. As described in section VI.E.2 of this
notice, the EPA is not estimating benefits of avoided cardiovascular
mortality that may result from the proposed LCR revisions. The EPA
acknowledges the scientific understanding of the relationship between
lead exposure and cardiovascular mortality is evolving and scientific
questions remain. The EPA intends to conduct additional analysis and
conduct a peer review that includes an opportunity for public comment.
In the interim, EPA solicits peer reviewed information on the evidence
relevant to quantifying the incremental contribution of blood lead
concentrations (especially at BLL <5 [mu]g/dL) to cardiovascular
disease (and associated mortality) relative to strong predictors such
as diet, exercise, and genetics that may be useful in future benefits
analysis.
    As mentioned in Section VI, and detailed in Appendix F of the EA,
the EPA in a secondary analysis has

estimated the changes in lead concentrations at non-LSL households that
result from changes in CCT. The lead concentration values used in this
assessment come from data EPA collected from 15 cities across the
United States and Canada (See Chapter 6, section 6,2 of the EA for more
detail). The EPA has not found additional studies to corroborate this
data. The EPA, therefore, is requesting comment and additional
information about the change in lead concentrations that occur in non-
LSL households that experience changes in CCT.

Recordkeeping

    The EPA requests comment on the utility of States maintaining
records of water system actions related to find-and-fix.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned the Agency's ICR number 2040-NEW. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions
are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before December 13,
2019. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule (EPA-
HQ-OW-2017-0300), and it is briefly summarized here. The burden
includes the time needed to conduct Primacy Agency and public water
system activities during the first three years after promulgation, as
described in Chapter 8 from the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Lead
and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a)).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by people to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology, and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The paperwork burden associated with this proposal consists of the
burden imposed on systems to read and understand the LCRR as well as
the burden associated with certain new or revised collections of
information. Specifically, public water systems will have to assign
personnel and devote resources in order to implement the rule. In
addition, public water systems will need to conduct training sessions
and receive technical assistance from their Primacy Agency during
implementation of the LCRR. Furthermore, public water systems will have
to develop a lead service line inventory or submit a demonstration to
the Primacy Agency that they do not have lead service lines. For the
public water systems that have lead service lines, a lead service
replacement plan will need to be developed.
    Likewise, the paperwork burden for primacy agencies include reading
and understanding the LCRR. The primacy agencies will have to adopt the
rule and develop programs to implement the LCRR. This may result in the
Primacy Agency modifying their data system while implementing the LCRR.
Also, the Primacy Agency will have to provide the Primacy Agency's
staff with training and technical assistance during implementation of
the LCRR. The Primacy Agency is also responsible for reviewing
demonstration of no lead service lines from systems and reviewing lead
service replacement plans.
    The information collected under the ICR is critical to States and
other authorized entities that have been granted primacy (i.e., primary
enforcement authority) for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). These
authorized entities are responsible for overseeing the LCR
implementation by certain public water systems within their
jurisdiction. Primacy agencies would utilize these data to determine
compliance, designate additional treatment controls to be installed,
and establish enforceable operating parameters. The collected
information is also necessary for public water systems. Public water
systems would use these data to demonstrate compliance, assess
treatment options, operate and maintain installed treatment equipment,
and communicate water quality information to consumers served by the
water system. Primacy agencies would also be required to report a
subset of these data to the EPA. The EPA would utilize the information
to protect public health by ensuring compliance with the LCR, measuring
progress toward meeting the LCR's goals, and evaluating the
appropriateness of State implementation activities. No confidential
information would be collected as a result of this ICR.
    Respondents/affected entities: Data associated with this proposed
ICR would be collected and maintained at the public water system, and
by State and Federal governments. Respondents would include owners and
operators of public water systems, who must report to their primacy
agency(s).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: If the proposed LCR is
finalized, then the respondent's obligation to respond would be
mandatory. Section 1401(1)(D) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
requires that ``criteria and procedures to assure a supply of drinking
water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels
[or treatment techniques promulgated in lieu of a maximum contaminant
level]; including accepted methods for quality control and testing
procedures to insure compliance with such levels and to insure proper
operation and maintenance of the system. . .'' Furthermore, section
1445(a)(1)(A) of the SDWA requires that ``[e]very person who is subject
to any requirement of this subchapter or who is a grantee, shall
establish and maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such
monitoring, and provide such information as the Administrator may
reasonably require by regulation to assist the Administrator in
establishing

regulations under this subchapter, in determining whether such person
has acted or is acting in compliance with this subchapter. . .'' In
addition, section 1413(a)(3) of the SDWA requires States to ``keep such
records and make such reports . . . as the Administrator may require by
regulation.''
    Estimated number of respondents: If the proposed rule is finalized,
the total number of respondents for the ICR would be 67,712. The total
includes 56 primacy agencies and 67,656 public water systems.
    Frequency of Response: The average burden per response (i.e., the
amount of time needed for each activity that requires a collection of
information) is 8.15 to 8.41 hours; the average cost per response is
$288 to $298.
    Total estimated burden: For the first three years after the final
rule is published, water systems and primacy agencies will implement
several proposed rule requirements. Since, the first three years of the
rule focuses on the creation of inventories for lead service lines,
households are not faced with costs. The public water systems burden
will include the following activities: Reading and understanding the
revised rule, personnel time for attending trainings, clarifying
regulatory requirements with the Primacy Agency during rule
implementation. Public water systems would also be required to create a
lead service line (LSL) materials inventory and develop an initial lead
service line replacement (LSLR) plan. The total burden hours for public
water systems ranges from 2.24 to 2.35 million hours. The total cost
for public water systems ranges from $68.3 to $72 million. For
additional information on the public water systems activity burden see
sections VI.C.3 and VI.C.4 of this notice.
    The Primacy Agency burden for the first three years of proposed
rule implementation would include the following: Reading and
understanding the rule; adopting the rule and developing an
implementation program; modifying data recording systems; training
staff; providing water system staff with initial and on-going technical
assistance and training; coordinating annual administration tasks with
the EPA; reporting data to SDWIS/Fed; reviewing public water system
(PWS) inventory data; and conferring with LSL water systems on initial
planning for LSLR program activities. The total burden hours for
primacy agencies is 485,821 to 508,207 hours. The total cost for
primacy agencies is $27.8 to $29.1 million. See section VI.C.8 of this
notice for additional discussion on burden and cost to the Primacy
Agency.
    The net change burden associated with moving from the information
requirements of the current rule to those in the proposed LCRR over the
three years covered by the ICR is 2.72 to 2.86 million hours, for an
average of 0.91 to 0.95 million hours per year. The range reflects the
upper- and lower-bound estimates of the number of systems that need to
develop LSL inventories. The total net change in costs over the three-
year clearance period are $96.2 to 101.2 million, for an average of
$32.1 to $33.7 million per year (simple average over three years).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the Docket ID. You may
also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention:
Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must
receive comments no later than December 13, 2019. The EPA will respond
to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

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

    Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could minimize that impact. The complete IRFA is available in Part 8.4
of the EA and is summarized here.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, the EPA considered small entities to be water systems
serving 10,000 people or fewer. This is the threshold specified by
Congress in the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA for small water system
flexibility provisions. As required by the RFA, the EPA proposed using
this alternative definition in the Federal Register (FR) (63 FR 7620,
February 13, 1998), sought public comment, consulted with the Small
Business Administration, and finalized the small water system threshold
in the Agency's Consumer Confidence Report regulation (USEPA, 1998b, 63
FR 44524, August 19, 1998). As stated in that document, the alternative
definition would apply to this regulation.
    The SDWA is the core statute addressing drinking water at the
Federal level. Under the SDWA, the EPA sets public health goals and
enforceable standards for drinking water quality. As previously
described, the LCR requires water systems to minimize lead and copper
in drinking water, primarily by reducing water corrosivity and
preventing the leaching of these metals from the premise plumbing and
drinking water distribution system components. The EPA is proposing
regulatory revisions to strengthen public health protection and improve
implementation in the following areas: Tap sampling, corrosion control
treatment; LSLR; consumer awareness; and public education.
    The EPA identified over 65,000 small public water systems that may
be impacted by the proposed LCR revisions. A small public water system
serves between 25 and 10,000 people. These water systems include over
45,758 community water systems that serve year-round residents and more
than 17,566 non-transient non-community water systems that serve the
same persons over six months per year (e.g., a public water system that
is an office park or church). The proposed revisions to the LCR include
requirements for: Conducting an LSL inventory that is updated annually;
installing or re-optimizing corrosion control treatment when water
quality declines; enhanced water quality parameter monitoring;
establishment of a ``find-and-fix'' provision to evaluate and remediate
elevated lead at a site where the tap sample exceeds the lead action
level; and improved customer outreach. These proposed revisions also
include reporting and recordkeeping requirements. States are required
to implement operator certification (and recertification) programs per
the SDWA section 1419 to ensure operators of community water systems
and non-transient non-community water systems, including small water
system operators, have the appropriate level of certification.
    Under the proposed rule requirements, small CWSs, serving 10,000 or
fewer people, and all NTNCWS with a 90th percentile lead value above
the action level of 15 [mu]g/L may choose between LSLR, CCT
installation, or POU device installation and maintenance as the
compliance option. A fourth option available to NTNCWSs, is the removal
of all lead bearing plumbing material from the system was not analyzed
in the EPA's

cost-benefit model. The EPA is estimating low and high cost scenarios
to characterize uncertainty in the cost model results. These scenarios
are functions of assigning different, low and high, input values to a
number of variables that affect the relative cost of the small system
compliance options. Under the current LCR, the EPA estimates that,
under the low cost scenario, 21,435 small CWSs will have annual total
LCR related costs of more than one percent of revenues, and that 10,599
of these small CWSs will have annual total costs of three percent or
greater of revenue. Under the proposed LCRR, the number of small CWSs
that will experience annual total costs of more than one percent of
revenues increases by 7,556 to 28,990 and the number of small CWSs that
will have annual total costs exceeding three percent of revenues
increases by 7,051 to 17,648. Under the high cost scenario, the EPA
estimates that under the current LCR, 22,732 small CWSs will have
annual total costs of more than one percent of revenues, and that
12,127 of these small CWSs will have annual total costs of three
percent or greater of revenue. Under the proposed LCRR, the number of
small CWSs that will experience annual total costs of more than one
percent of revenues increases by 8,274 to 31,002 and the number of
small CWSs that will have annual total costs of more than three percent
of revenues increases by 7,749 to 19,873. See section 8.4 of the
proposed LCRR Economic Analysis for more information on the
characterization of the impacts under the proposed rule. The EPA has
considered an alternative approach to provide regulatory flexibility to
small water systems. Section 8.4 of the LCRR Economic Analysis contains
an assessment of impacts for an alternative option that sets the
threshold for system compliance flexibility at systems serving 3,300 or
fewer people.
    As required by section 609 (b) of the RFA, the EPA also convened a
Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and
recommendations from small entity representatives that potentially
would be subject to the rule's requirements. The SBAR panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
the elements of the IRFA. A copy of the full SBAR panel report is
available in the rulemaking docket.

E. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains a Federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a written
statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is included
in the docket for this action (see Chapter 8 in the Economic Analysis
of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a)) and is
briefly summarized here.
    Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
UMRA section 204, the EPA consulted with governmental entities affected
by this rule. The EPA describes the government-to-government dialogue
and comments from State, local, and tribal governments in section
VIII.F Executive Order 13132: Federalism and section VIII.G Executive
Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments of this notice.
    Consistent with UMRA section 205, the EPA identified and analyzed a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives to determine the treatment
technique requirements in the proposed LCR revisions. Sections III, IV,
and V of this notice describe the proposed options. See section VI.F of
this notice and Chapter 9 in the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Lead
and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a)) for alternative options that
were considered.
    This action may significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The EPA consulted with small governments concerning the regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. The EPA
describes this consultation above in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), section VIII.D of this notice.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The EPA has concluded that this action has Federalism implications,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State or
local governments. The EPA consulted with State and local governments
early in the process of developing the proposed action to allow them to
provide meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA held
Federalism consultations on November 15, 2011, and on January 8, 2018.
The EPA invited the following national organizations representing State
and local elected officials to a meeting on January 8, 2018, in
Washington, DC: The National Governors' Association, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the
National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National
Association of Counties, the International City/County Management
Association, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the
County Executives of America, and the Environmental Council of States.
Additionally, the EPA invited the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the
National Rural Water Association, the American Water Works Association,
the American Public Works Association, the National School Board
Association, the American Association of School Administrators, and the
Western Governors' Association to participate in the meeting. The EPA
also provided the associations' membership an opportunity to provide
input during follow-up meetings. The EPA held five follow up meetings
between January 8, 2018, and March 8, 2018. In addition to input
received during the meetings, the EPA provided an opportunity to
receive written input within 60 days after the initial meeting. A
summary report of the views expressed during Federalism consultations
is available in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Consistent with the EPA
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4,
2011), the EPA consulted with Tribal officials during the development
of this action to gain an understanding of Tribal views of potential
revisions to key areas of the LCR. The EPA held consultations with
federally-recognized Indian Tribes in 2011 and 2018. The 2018
consultations with federally-recognized Indian Tribes began on January
16, 2018 and ended March 16, 2018. The first national webinar was held
January 31, 2018, while the second national webinar was held February
15, 2018. A total of 48 tribal representatives participated in the two
webinars. Updates on the consultation process were provided to the
National Tribal Water Council upon request at regularly scheduled
monthly meetings during the consultation process. Also, upon request,
informational webinars were provided to the National Tribal Toxics
Council's Lead Subcommittee on

January 30, 2018, and the EPA Region 9's Regional Tribal Operations
Committee (RTOC) on February 8, 2018. Additionally, the EPA received
written comments from the following Tribes and Tribal organizations:
The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, the National Tribal Water Council,
the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, and
the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council. A summary report of the
views expressed during Tribal consultations is available in the Docket
(EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).

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

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and, based on the record, the EPA finds that the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action has a
disproportionate effect on children. Accordingly, the EPA has evaluated
the environmental health or safety effects of lead found in drinking
water on children and estimated the risk reduction and health endpoint
impacts to children associated with the adoption and optimization of
corrosion control treatment technologies and the replacement of LSLs.
The results of these evaluations are contained in the Economic Analysis
of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2019a) and
described in section VI.D.2 of this notice. Copies of the Economic
Analysis of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions and supporting
information are available in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    The proposed revisions may involve existing voluntary consensus
standards in that it requires additional monitoring for lead and
copper. Monitoring and sample analysis methodologies are often based on
voluntary consensus standards. However, the proposed LCR revisions does
not change any methodological requirements for monitoring or sample
analysis. The EPA's approved monitoring and sampling protocols
generally include voluntary consensus standards developed by agencies
such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and other such
bodies wherever the EPA deems these methodologies appropriate for
compliance monitoring. The EPA notes that in some cases, the proposed
LCR revises the required frequency and number of lead tap samples.

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

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

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

1. Consultation With the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
    As required by section 4365 of the SDWA, in 2011, the EPA sought an
evaluation of current scientific data to determine whether partial LSLR
effectively reduce water lead levels. When the LCR was promulgated in

1991, large water systems, serving greater than 50,000 people, were
required to install CCT and small and medium water systems, serving
50,000 or fewer people if samples exceeded the action level for lead.
If the action level was not met after installing CCT, water systems are
required to replace 7 percent of its LSLs annually. However, in 2000,
revisions to the LCR allowed water systems, if they exceeded the action
level, to replace only the portion of the LSL that the water system
owned and to replace the customer's portion of the LSL at the
customer's expense. This practice is known as a partial LSLR.
    The EPA asked the SAB to evaluate the current scientific data on
the following five partial LSLR issues: (1) Associations between
partial LSLR and blood lead levels in children; (2) lead tap water
sampling data before and after partial LSLR; (3) comparisons between
partial and full LSLR; (4) partial LSLR techniques; and (5) the impact
of galvanic corrosion. The EPA identified several studies for the SAB
to review while the SAB selected additional studies for their
evaluation. The SAB deliberated and sought input from public meetings
held on March 30 and 31, 2011, and during a public conference call on
May 16, 2011. The SAB's final report, titled ``SAB Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of Partial Lead Service Line Replacements'' was approved
by the SAB on July 19, 2011, and transmitted to the EPA Administrator
on September 28, 2011.
    The SAB determined that the quality and quantity of data was
inadequate to fully evaluate the effectiveness of partial LSLR in
reducing drinking water lead concentrations. Both the small number of
studies and the limitations within these studies (i.e., lack of
comparability between studies, small sample size) barred a
comprehensive assessment of partial LSLR efficacy. However, despite the
limitations, the SAB concluded that partial LSLR's have not been shown
to reliably reduce drinking water lead levels in the short-term of days
to months, and potentially even longer. Additionally, partial LSLR is
often associated with elevated drinking water lead levels in the short-
term. The available data suggested that the elevated drinking water
lead levels after the partial LSLR tend to stabilize over time to lower
than or to levels similar to before the partial LSLR. Therefore, the
SAB concluded that available data suggest that partial LSLR's may pose
a risk to the population due to short-term elevations in drinking water
lead concentrations after a partial LSLR, which last for an unknown
period. Considering the SAB's findings on partial LSLR, the EPA
determined that partial replacements should no longer be required when
water systems exceed the action level for lead, but the EPA still
considers full replacement of the LSL as beneficial (USEPA, 2011).
2. Consultation With National Drinking Water Advisory Council
    The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) is a Federal
Advisory Committee that supports EPA in performing its duties and
responsibilities related to the national drinking water program and was
created through a provision in the SDWA in 1974. The EPA sought advice
from the NDWAC as required under Sec.  300j-5 of the SDWA. The EPA
consulted with NDWAC on July 21-22, 2011, to provide updates on the
proposed LCR revisions and solicit feedback on potential regulatory
options under consideration. In November 2011, NDWAC held deliberations
on LSLR requirements after they received the SAB's final report on the
effectiveness of partial LSLR. In December 2011, a public meeting was
held where NDWAC provided the EPA with major recommendations on the
potential LCR regulatory revisions, which are outlined in a letter
dated December 23, 2011.
    In 2014, the NDWAC formed the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group
(LCRWG) to provide additional advice to the EPA on potential options
for long-term regulatory revisions. The EPA held meetings from March of
2014 until December 2015 where NDWAC LCRWG members discussed components
of the rule and provided the EPA with advice for addressing the
following issues: Sample site collection criteria, lead sampling
protocols, public education for copper, and measures to ensure optimal
CCT and LSLR. NDWAC provided the Agency with their final
recommendations and findings in a report submitted to the Administrator
in December 2015. In the report, NDWAC acknowledged that reducing lead
exposure is a shared responsibility between consumers, the government,
public water systems, building owners, and public health officials. In
addition, they recognized that creative financing is necessary to reach
the LSL removal goals, especially for disparate and vulnerable
communities. The NDWAC advised the EPA to maintain the LCR as a
treatment technique rule but with enhanced improvements. NDWAC
qualitatively considered costs before finalizing its recommendations,
emphasizing that public water systems and States should focus efforts
where the greatest public health protection can be achieved,
incorporating their anticipated costs in their capital improvement
program or the requests for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. The
LCRWG outlined an extensive list of recommendations for the LCR
revisions, including establishing a goal-based LSLR program,
strengthening CCT requirements, and tailoring water quality parameters
to the specific CCT plan for each water system.
    The report NDWAC provided for the EPA also included recommendations
for renewed collaborative commitments between government and all levels
of the public from State and local agencies, to other stakeholders and
consumers while recognizing the EPA's leadership role in this area.
These complementary actions as well as a detailed description of the
provisions for NDWAC's recommendations for the long-term revisions to
the LCR can be found in the ``Report of the Lead and Copper Rule
Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council'' (NDWAC,
2015). The EPA took into consideration NDWAC's recommendations when
developing these proposed revisions to the LCR.

M. Consultation With Health and Human Services

    On June 12, 2019, the EPA consulted with the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS). The EPA received and considered comments from
the HHS through the inter-agency review process described in section
VIII.A of this notice.

IX. References

ANSI. (November 1, 2017). Replacement and Flushing of Lead Service
Lines. AWWA C810-17 43810. First Edition. Denver, CO: AWWA, 2017.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. (August 2019).
Developing Lead Service Line Inventories Presented by the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. Retrieved August
2019, from: https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ASDWA_Developing-Lead-Service-Line-Inventories.pdf.
AWWA. 2017. Lead Service Line Management. Retrieved September 3,
2019 from: https://www.awwa.org/Policy-Advocacy/AWWA-Policy-Statements/Lead-Service-Line-Management.
AwwaRF. 2008. Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to
Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. 978-1-60573-031-7.
AwwaRF and DVGW-Technologiezentrum Wasser. 1996. Internal Corrosion
of Water Distribution Systems. 2nd edition. AwwaRF Order 90508.
Project #725. AWWA Research Foundation (now Water Research
Foundation) and AWWA. Denver, CO.

Budtz-J[oslash]rgensen, E., Bellinger, D., Lanphear, B., &
Grandjean, P. (2013). An International Pooled Analysis for Obtaining
a Benchmark Dose for Environmental Lead Exposure in Children. Risk
Analysis, 33(3), 450-461. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01882.x.
Chislock, M.F., Doster, E., Zitomer, R.A. and A.E. Wilson. 2013.
Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic
Ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge 4(4):10.
Cornwell, D.A., R.A. Brown, and S.H Via. 2016. National Survey of
Lead Service Line Occurrence. Journal American Water Works
Association. 108(4):E182-E191.
Crump, K.S., Van Landingham, C., Bowers, T.S., Cahoy, D., &
Chandalia, J.K. (2013). A statistical reevaluation of the data used
in the Lanphear et al. (2005) pooled-analysis that related low
levels of blood lead to intellectual deficits in children. Crit Rev
Toxicol, 43(9), 785-799. doi:10.3109/10408444.2013.832726.
DC Water. 2016. DC Water Service Information. Retrieved August 12,
2019, from https://geo.dcwater.com/Lead/
De Rosa and Williams. 1992. Particulate lead in water supplies
(TMU9024). Final Report to the Department of the Environment.
Swindon, England: Water Research Center (1992)
Del Toral, Miguel A. Del. Et al. ``Detection and Evaluation of
Elevated Lead Release from Service Lines: A Field Study.''
Environmental Science and Technology; vol. 47, no. 16, 2013, pp.
9300-9307.
Deshommes, E., Bannier, A., Laroche, L., Nour, S., & Prevost, M.
2016. Monitoring-based framework to detect and manage lead water
service lines. Journal of the American Water Works Association,
108(11), E555-E570.
Dodds, W.K., Bouska, W.W., Eitzmann, J.L., Pilger, T.J., Pitts,
K.L., Riley, A.J., Schloesser, J.T., and D.J. Thornbrugh. 2009.
Eutrophication of U.S. Freshwaters: Analysis of Potential Economic
Damages. Environmental Science Technology 43 (1).
EDF. 2019. Recognizing efforts to replace lead service lines.
Retrieved from https://www.edf.org/health/recognizing-efforts-replace-lead-service-lines.
Edwards and Triantafyllidou, 2007. M. Edwards, S. Triantafyllidou,
Chloride-to-sulfate mass ratio and lead leaching to water. J. Water
Works Assoc. 2007, 99, 96.
Elfland et. al. 2010. Lead-contaminated water from brass plumbing
devices in new buildings. J. Water Works Assoc, 102, 11.
ERG, 2017. Summary Report of the Peer Review Meeting for EPA's Draft
Report, Proposed Modeling Approaches for a Health-based Benchmark
for Lead in Drinking Water. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/lcr_peer_review_summary_report_final_10-25-17_508.pdf
Galesburg, 2016. Lead Service Line Replacement Grant Program
Application. Accessed 9/12/2019. https://www.ci.galesburg.il.us/assets/1/22/LEAD_SERVICE_LINE_REPLACEMENT_GRANT_PROGRAM_APPLICATION.pdf
GAO-17-424, U.S. Government Accountability Office. Drinking Water,
Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA's Oversight
of the Lead and Copper Rule. September 2017.
GAO-18-620, U.S. Government Accountability Office. Drinking Water
Approaches for Identifying Lead Service Lines Should be Shared with
All States. September 2018.
Glibert, P.M., Anderson, D.M., Gentien, P., Graneli, E. and K.G.
Sellner. 2005. The Global, Complex Phenomena of Harmful Algal
Blooms. Oceanography 18:2.
Gregory and Jackson, 1984; Gregory, R. and Jackson, P.J. Central
Water Treatment to Reduce Lead Solubility. Water Research Center.
Prepared for the AWWA Annual Conference. Dallas, TX (1984).
HDR. (2009). An Analysis of the Correlation between Lead Released
from Galvanized Iron Piping and the Contents of Lead in Drinking
Water. Retrieved August 13, 2019, from https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/galvanizedprojectreport.pdf.
Hill, C.P., and Cantor, A.F. 2011. Internal Corrosion Control in
Water Distribution Systems. AWWA Manual M58, First Edition. American
Water Works Association. Denver, CO.
Katner, Adrienne, et al. Effectiveness of Prevailing Flush
Guidelines to Prevent Exposure to Lead in Tap Water. MDPI,
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 20 July 2018,
www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/7/1537.
Kirrane, E.F., & Patel, M.M. (2014). Memorandum from EPA NCEA to ISA
for Lead Docket: Identification and consideration of errors in
Lanphear et al. (2005), ``Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and
Children's Intellectual Function: An International Pooled
Analysis.''
Lanphear, B.P., Hornung, R., Khoury, J., Yolton, K., Baghurst, P.A.,
Bellinger, D.C., . . . Roberts, R. (2005). Low-Level Environmental
Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual Function: An International
Pooled Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), 894-899.
doi:10.1289/ehp.7688.
Lin, D., Lutter, R., & Ruhm, C.J. 2016. Cognitive performance and
labour market outcomes. Labour Economics, 51, 121-135.
Lyon and Lenihan, 1977. Lyon, T.D.B. and Lenihan, J.M.A. Corrosion
in Solder Jointed Copper Tubes Resulting in Lead Contamination of
Drinking Water. Br. Corros. J. (March 1977), Vol. 12, No.1.
Lytle, D.A. and Schock, M.R. (1996). Stagnation time, composition,
pH and orthophosphate effects on metal leaching from brass. EPA/600/
R-96/103 September 1996.
Lytle, D.A. Et al. 2019. Sequential Drinking Water Sampling as a
Tool for Evaluating Lead in Flint, Michigan. Water Research; Vol.
157, pp 40-54.
McFadden, M., et al. 2011. Contributions to Drinking Water Lead from
Galvanized Iron Corrosion Scales. Journal American Water Works
Association; 103(4), pp 76-89. DOI: 10.1002/j.1551-
8833.2011.tb11437.x
Ministry of Ontario. Regulation 170/03. Schedule 15.1 Lead, under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Guidance Document for Preparing
Corrosion Control Plans for Drinking Water Systems. PIBs # 7463.
December 2009.
NDWAC Lead and Copper Working Group. (2015). Report of the Lead and
Copper Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council--Final. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/ndwaclcrwgfinalreportaug2015.pdf.
National Research Council. (2000). Copper in Drinking Water.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Toxicology Program. (2012). NTP Monograph on Health Effects
of Low-Level Lead. Durham, NC.
Nguyen et al., 2010. C.K. Nguyen, K.R. Stone, A. Dudi, M.A. Edwards,
CorrosiveNguyen et al., 2010. C.K. Nguyen, K.R. Stone, A. Dudi, M.A.
Edwards, Corrosive microenvironments at lead solder surfaces arising
from galvanic corrosion with copper pipe. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2010, 44, 7076.
Nguyen et al., 2011. C.K. Nguyen, K.R. Stone, M.A. Edwards,
Chloride-to-sulfate mass ratio: practical studies in galvanic
corrosion of lead solder. J. Water Works Assoc. 2011, 103, 81.
Office of Management and Budget. (2003) Circular A-4. Washington,
DC.
Office of Inspector General (EPA). ``Much Effort and Resources
Needed to Help Small Drinking Water Systems Overcome Challenges.''
Report No. 2006-P-00026. May 30, 2006.
Oliphant, 1982. Oliphant, R.J. Lead Contamination of Potable Water
Arising from Soldered Joints. Water Research Center (1982).
Pocock, S.J., Shaper, A.G., Walker, M., Wale, C.J., Clayton, B.,
Delves, T., . . . Powell, P. (1983). Effects of tap water lead,
water hardness, alcohol, and cigarettes on blood lead
concentrations. J Epidemiol Community Health, 37(1), 1-7.
Salkever, D.S. (1995). Updated Estimates of Earnings Benefits from
Reduced Exposure of Children to Environmental Lead. Environmental
Research, 70, 1-6. doi:doi: 0013-9351/95
Sandvig, A., P. Kwan, P.E., G. Kirmeyer, P.E., Dr. B. Maynard, Dr.
D. Mast, Dr. R. R. Trussell, P.E., Dr. S. Trussell, P.E., A. Cantor,
P.E., MCSD, and A. Prescott. 2008. Contribution of Service Line and
Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. Denver,
Colo.: Awwa Research Foundation. Peer reviewed by AwwaRF Project
Advisory Committee.
Schock, M.R., and Lytle, D.A. 2011. Chapter 20: Internal Corrosion
and Deposition Control. In Water Quality and Treatment. 6th Edition.
AWWA and McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Schwartz, J., & Otto, D. (1991). Lead and minor hearing impairment.
Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health,

46(5), 300-305. doi:10.1080/00039896.1991.9934391.
Sherlock, J., Smart, G., Forbes, G.I., Moore, M.R., Patterson, W.J.,
Richards, W.N., & Wilson, T.S. (1982). Assessment of lead intakes
and dose-response for a population in Ayr exposed to a plumbosolvent
water supply. Hum Toxicol, 1(2), 115-122.
Slabaugh, R.M., R.B. Arnold, S. Chaparro, and C.P. Hill. 2015.
National Cost Implications of Potential Long[hyphen]Term LCR
Requirements. Journal American Water Works Association. 107(8):E389-
E400.
State of California. 2016. Public water systems: lead user service
lines. SB-1398.
State of Illinois. 2017. 99th General Assembly. PA 99-0922.
State of Michigan. 2017. Supplying Water to the Public, 2017-008 EQ.
State of Ohio. 2016. 31st General Assembly. Adoption of Rules
Relating to Water System Testing.
United States. America's Water Infrastructure Act. 2018.
United States. Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act.
2016.
USEPA, 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Impact of Lead
and Other Metallic Solders on Water Quality. Prepared by N.E.
Murrell for USEPA (February 1990).
USEPA. 1991. ``Drinking Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant Level
Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and
Copper; Final Rule.'' Federal Register, 40 CFR parts 141 and 142.
Vol. 56, No. 110. June 7, 1991.
USEPA. 1999. Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of
Public Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the
Direct Influence (GWUDI) of Surface Water. EPA 815-R-99-016. April
1999. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=200022MT.txt.
USEPA. 2003a. Final Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and
Copper Control Strategies. Report No. EPA-816-R-03-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule-compliance-help-primacyagencies.
USEPA. 2003b. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for
Lead for an Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult
Exposures to Lead in Soil. Retrieved from https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/199244.pdf.
USEPA. 2004a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical
Assessment Summary for Lead and compounds (inorganic); CASRN 7439-
92-1 (https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0277_summary.pdf).
USEPA. 2004b. U.S. EPA Lead Service Line Replacement Workshop
Summary Report.
USEPA 2008a. Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair
and Painting Program Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-
Occupied Facilities. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2008b. ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.''
73 FR 66964. Pages 66964-67062. November 2008 (to be codified at 40
CFR 51, 51, 53, and 58).'' Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/11/12/E8-25654/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for-lead.
USEPA. 2008c. Sanitary Survey Guidance Manual for Ground Water
Systems. EPA 815-R-08-015. October 2008. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/gwr_sanitary_survey_guidance.pdf.
USEPA. 2010. Lead and Copper Rule Monitoring and Reporting Guidance
for Public Water Systems. EPA 816-R-10-004. March 2010. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100DP2P.txt.
USEPA. 2011. Science Advisory Board Drinking Water Committee
Augmented for the Review of the Effectiveness of Partial Lead
Service Line Replacements. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sab_evaluation_partial_lead_service_lines_epa-sab-11-015.pdf.
USEPA. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment for Lead. (EPA/600/R-10/
075F). Research Triangle Park, NC.
USEPA. 2015. Benefit and Cost Analysis for the Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating
Point Source Category EPA-821-R-15-005. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/steam-electric_benefit-cost-analysis_09-29-2015.pdf.
USEPA. 2016a. National Lakes Assessment 2012: A Collaborative Survey
of Lakes in the United States. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/nla_report_dec_2016.pdf.
USEPA. 2016b. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008-2009 Fact
Sheet. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/fact_sheet_draft_variation_march_2016_revision.pdf.
USEPA. 2016c. Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment Evaluation
Technical Recommendations for Primacy Agencies and Public Water
Systems (EPA-816-B-16-003) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-07/documents/occtmarch2016updated.pdf.
USEPA. 2016d. Safe Drinking Water Information System Federal Version
(SDWIS/Fed) Data Reporting Requirements, v1.2. Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water. March 2016.
USEPA. 2016e. WSG 197. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Memorandum to Water Division Directions, Regions I-X, from Peter C.
Grevatt, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. Clarification of
Recommended Tap Sampling Procedures for Purposes of the Lead and
Copper Rule (Feb. 29, 2016).
USEPA. 2018. Summary Report on Federalism: Lead and Cooper Rule.
USEPA. 2019. Estimated Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loads and
Yields Generated within States. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/estimated-total-nitrogen-and-total-phosphorus-loads-and-yields-generated-within.
USEPA. 2019a. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper
Rule Revisions.
USEPA. 2019b. Estimated Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loads
and Yields Generated within States. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/estimated-total-nitrogen-and-total-phosphorus-loads-and-yields-generated-within.
USEPA. 2019c. Lead Service Line Replacement Rate Analysis Workbook.
Unpublished raw data.
USEPA. 2019d. Strategies to Achieve Full Lead Service Line
Replacement.
Weston, Roy F. and Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. 1990.
Final Report: Lead Service Line Replacement A Benefit-to-Cost
Analysis. Denver, Colorado: American Water Works Association.
The White House. 2019a. 2020 Budget Fact Sheet. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/FY20-Fact-Sheet_Infrastructure_FINAL.pdf
The White House. 2019b. Remarks by President Trump on America's
Environmental Leadership. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-americas-environmental-leadership/
Wilczak, A.J., Hokanson, D.R., Rhodes Trussel, R., Boozarpour, M.,
and Degraca, A. 2010. Water Conditioning for LCR Compliance and
Control of Metals Release In San Francisco's Water System. J. AWWA,
102(3):52-64.
Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Tornero-Velez, R., & Brown, J. 2017.
Children's Lead Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling Analysis to Guide
Public Health Decision-Making. Environmental Health Perspectives,
125(9). doi:10.1289/EHP1605.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 141 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians--lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Chemicals, Indians--lands, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

    Dated: October 10, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

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

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  141.2 by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``action level'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``aerator'', ``child
care facility'', ``consumer'', ``customer'', and ``find-and-fix'';
0
c. Revising the definition for ``first-draw sample'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``galvanized service
line'', ``gooseneck, pigtail or connector'', and ``hydrovacing'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``lead service line''; and
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``method detection
limit''; ``monitoring period (tap sampling)'', ``pitcher filter'';
``potholing'', ``pre-stagnation flushing''; ``sampling period'',
``school'', ``tap sampling protocol'', ``trenching'', ``trigger
level'', and ``wide-mouth bottles''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  141.2  Definitions

* * * * *
    Action level means the concentrations of lead or copper in water as
specified in Sec.  141.80(c) which determines, in some cases, the
treatment, lead service line replacement, and tap sampling requirements
that a water system is required to complete. The action level for lead
is 0.015 mg/L and the action level for copper is 1.3 mg/L.
    Aerator means the device embedded in the water faucet to enhance
air flow with the water stream and to prevent splashing.
* * * * *
    Child care facility means a location that houses a licensed
provider of child care, day care or early learning services to
children, as determined by the State, local, or tribal licensing
agency.
* * * * *
    Consumer means customers and other users of a public water system.
* * * * *
    Customer means a paying user of a public water system.
* * * * *
    Find-and-Fix means the requirement in 141.82(j) that water systems
must perform at every sampling site that yielded a lead result above
the action level (0.015 mg/L). Follow-up sampling results must be
provided to the consumer in accordance with Sec.  141.85(d).
    First-draw sample means a one-liter sample of tap water, collected
in accordance with Sec.  141.86(b)(2).,
* * * * *
    Galvanized service line generally means iron or steel piping that
has been dipped in zinc to prevent corrosion and rusting.
    Gooseneck, pigtail or connector is a short section of piping,
usually one to two feet long, which can be bent and used for
connections between rigid service piping.
* * * * *
    Hydrovacing means an alternative method to digging up a lead
service line to identify it using high-pressure water and a vacuum
system to dig a hole.
* * * * *
    Lead service line means a service line made of lead, which connects
the water main to the building inlet. A lead service line may be owned
by the water system, owned by the property owner, or both. For the
purposes of this subpart, a galvanized service line is considered a
lead service line if it ever was or is currently downstream of any lead
service line or service line of unknown material. If the only lead
piping serving the home or building is a lead gooseneck, pigtail, or
connector, and it is not a galvanized service line that is considered
an LSL the service line is not a lead service line.
* * * * *
    Medium-size water system, for the purpose of subpart I of this part
only, means a water system that serves greater than 10,000 and less
than or equal to 50,000 persons.
    Method Detection Limit (MDL) means the minimum concentration of a
substance that can be measured and reporting with 99% confidence that
the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from
analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte.
    Monitoring period for the purposes of subpart I of this part only
means the schedule during which each water system must conduct tap
sampling for lead and copper analysis. A monitoring period is
determined by lead and copper concentrations in tap samples and the
frequency can range from every six months (i.e., semi-annual) up to
once every nine years. The start of each new lead monitoring period,
with the exception of semi-annual monitoring, must begin on January 1.
* * * * *
    Pitcher filter means the filtration insert for water pitchers that
removes lead in drinking water, and that is certified to remove lead in
accordance with applicable standards established by the American
National Standards Institute.
* * * * *
    Potholing means the practice of digging a test hole to expose a
potential lead service line.
* * * * *
    Practical quantitation Limit (PQL) means the minimum concentration
of an analyte (substance) that can be measured with a high degree of
confidence that the analyte is present at or above that concentration.
* * * * *
    Pre-stagnation flushing is the running of taps to flush water from
plumbing prior to the minimum 6-hour stagnation period required for
lead and copper tap sampling.
* * * * *
    Sampling period for the purpose of subpart I of this part only
means the time period, within a tap sampling monitoring period, during
which the water system is required to collect samples for lead and
copper analysis. The annual sampling period must be between the months
of June and September, unless a different sampling period is approved
in writing to be more appropriate by the primacy agency.
* * * * *
    School for the purpose of subpart I of this part only means any
public, private, charter or other location that provides student
learning for elementary or secondary students.
* * * * *
    Small water system, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only,
means a water system that serves 10,000 persons or fewer.
* * * * *
    Tap sampling protocol means the instructions given to residents or
those sampling on behalf of the water system to conduct tap sampling
for lead and copper. Tap sampling protocols may not include any
instructions or recommendations for pre-stagnation flushing or removal
or cleaning of faucet aerators prior to sample collection.
* * * * *
    Trenching is a method of excavation, in this case to identify a
lead service line, where a depression is dug that is generally deeper
than its width.
    Trigger level means a particular concentration of contaminants in
water as specified in Sec.  141.80(c) that prompts certain activities.
The trigger level for lead is a concentration greater than 0.010 mg/L
but less than or equal to 0.015 mg/L. The trigger level for lead
determines the treatment, lead service

line replacement, and tap sampling requirements applicable to each
water system.
* * * * *
    Wide-mouth bottles for the purpose of subpart I of this part only
means bottles configured with a mouth that is at least 55 mm wide,
required to be used for lead and copper tap sampling collection to
optimize capturing accurate lead measurements.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  141.31 to revise paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  141.31  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) The public water system, within 10 days of completing the
public notification requirements under subpart Q of this part for the
initial public notice and any repeat notices, must submit to the
primacy agency a certification that it has fully complied with the
public notification regulations. For Tier 2 and 3 notices, the public
water system must include with this certification a representative copy
of each type of notice distributed, published, posted, and made
available to the persons served by the system and to the media. (2) For
Tier 1 notices public water systems must provide a copy of any Tier 1
notice to the Administrator and the head of the Primacy Agency as soon
as practicable, but not later than 24 hours after the public water
system learns of the violation or exceedance.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  141.80 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d)(1) and (f);
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraph (g);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (k) as paragraph (m);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (h) through (j) as paragraphs (i) through
(k); and
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (h) and (1).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  141.80  General requirements.

    (a) Applicability, effective date, and compliance deadlines. The
requirements of this subpart constitute the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for lead and copper.
    (1) The provisions of this subpart apply to community water systems
and non-transient, non-community water systems (hereinafter referred to
as ``water systems'' or ``systems'') as defined at 40 CFR 141.2.
    (2) The requirements of this subpart are effective as of [DATE 60
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
    (3) Community water systems and non-transient, non-community water
systems must comply with the requirements of this subpart no later than
[DATE THREE YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], except where otherwise specified at Sec. Sec.  141.81,
141.84, 141.85, 141.86, and 141.90, or where an exemption in accordance
with 40 CFR 142 at subpart C or F has been established by the
Administrator.
    (4)(i) Between [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register] and [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], community water systems and non-transient,
non-community water systems must comply with 40 CFR 141.80 through
141.90 as promulgated in 56 FR 26548, June 7, 1991; 57 FR 28788, June
29, 1992; 59 FR 33862, June 30, 1994; 65 FR 2004, January 12, 2000; 72
FR 57814, October 10, 2007.
    (ii) If an exemption from Subpart I has been issued in accordance
with 40 CFR 142 subpart C or F, then the water systems must comply with
40 CFR 141.80 through 141.90 as promulgated in 56 FR 26548, June 7,
1991; 57 FR 28788, June 29, 1992; 59 FR 33862, June 30, 1994; 65 FR
2004, January 12, 2000; 72 FR 57814, October 10, 2007 until the
expiration of that exemption.
    (b) Scope. These regulations establish a treatment technique that
includes requirements for corrosion control treatment, source water
treatment, lead service line inventory, lead service line replacement,
public notice, monitoring for lead in schools and child care
facilities, and public education. Several of these requirements are
prompted by the lead and copper action levels or the lead trigger
level, specified in paragraph (c) of this section, as measured in
samples collected at consumers' taps. All community water systems are
subject to sampling for lead in schools and child care facilities and
public education requirements regardless of the results of the
compliance tap sampling.
    (c) Lead trigger level, lead action level, and copper action level.
Trigger levels and action levels must be determined based on tap water
samples collected in accordance with the monitoring requirements of
Sec.  141.86 and tested using the analytical methods specified in Sec.
141.89. The trigger level and action levels described in this paragraph
are applicable to all sections of subpart I. Trigger level and action
levels for lead and copper are as follows:
    (1) The lead trigger level is exceeded if the 90th percentile
concentration of lead as specified in (c)(4) of this section is greater
than 0.010 mg/L.
    (2) The lead action level is exceeded if the 90th percentile
concentration of lead as specified in (c)(4) of this section is greater
than 0.015 mg/L.
    (3) The copper action level is exceeded if the 90th percentile
concentration of copper as specified in (c)(4) of this section is
greater than 1.3 mg/L.
    (4) For purposes of this subpart, the 90th percentile concentration
shall be computed as follows:
    (i) For systems that do not have lead service line sites and only
have sites identified as Tier 3 or 4 under Sec.  141.86(a).
    (A) The results of all lead or copper samples taken during a
monitoring period shall be placed in ascending order from the sample
with the lowest concentration to the sample with the highest
concentration. Each sampling result shall be assigned a number,
ascending by single integers beginning with the number 1 for the sample
with the lowest contaminant level. The number assigned to the sample
with the highest contaminant level shall be equal to the total number
of samples taken.
    (B) The number of samples taken during the monitoring period shall
be multiplied by 0.9.
    (C) The contaminant concentration in the numbered sample yielded by
the calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(i)(B) of this section is the 90th
percentile concentration.
    (D) For water systems serving fewer than 100 people that collect 5
samples per monitoring period, the 90th percentile concentration is the
average of the highest and second highest concentration.
    (E) For a public water system that has been allowed by the State to
collect fewer than five samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(c), the
sample result with the highest concentration is considered the 90th
percentile value.
    (ii) For public water systems with lead service lines with sites
identified as Tier 1 or 2 under Sec.  141.86(a) with enough Tier 1 or 2
sites to meet the minimum number of sites listed in Sec.  141.86(c):
    (A) The results of all lead or copper samples taken at Tier 1 or
Tier 2 sites during a monitoring period shall be placed in ascending
order from the sample with the lowest concentration to the sample with
the highest concentration. Sample results from Tier 3 and Tier 4 sites
shall not be included in this calculation. Each sampling result shall
be assigned a number, ascending

by single integers beginning with the number 1 for the sample with the
lowest contaminant level. The number assigned to the sample with the
highest contaminant level shall be equal to the total number of samples
taken.
    (B) The number of samples taken at Tier 1 or Tier 2 sites during
the monitoring period shall be multiplied by 0.9.
    (C) The contaminant concentration in the numbered sample yielded by
the calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B) of this section is the 90th
percentile concentration.
    (D) For water systems serving fewer than 100 people that collect 5
samples per monitoring period, the 90th percentile concentration is the
average of the highest and second highest concentration.
    (E) For a public water system that has been allowed by the State to
collect fewer than five samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(c), the
sample result with the highest concentration is considered the 90th
percentile value.
    (iii) For systems with lead service lines with sites identified as
Tier 1 or 2 under Sec.  141.86(a) with insufficient number of Tier 1 or
2 sites to meet the minimum number of sites listed in Sec.  141.86(c):
    (A) The results of all lead or copper samples taken at Tier 1 or
Tier 2 sites along with the highest results from Tier 3 or Tier 4 sites
sufficient to meet the minimum number of sites shall be placed in
ascending order from the sample with the lowest concentration to the
sample with the highest concentration. Sample results from any
remaining Tier 3 and Tier 4 sites shall not be included in this
calculation. Each sampling result shall be assigned a number, ascending
by single integers beginning with the number 1 for the sample with the
lowest contaminant level. The number assigned to the sample with the
highest contaminant level shall be equal to the total minimum number of
sites listed in Sec.  141.86(c).
    (B) The required minimum number of sites listed in Sec.  141.86(c)
shall be multiplied by 0.9.
    (C) The contaminant concentration in the numbered sample yielded by
the calculation in paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B) is the 90th percentile
concentration.
    (D) For water systems serving fewer than 100 people that collect 5
samples per monitoring period, the 90th percentile concentration is the
average of the highest and second highest concentration.
    (E) For a public water system that has been allowed by the State to
collect fewer than five samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(c), the
sample result with the highest concentration is considered the 90th
percentile value.
    (d) Corrosion control requirements. (1) All water systems shall
install and operate corrosion control treatment in accordance with
Sec. Sec.  141.81 and 141.82, and that meets the definition of optimal
corrosion control treatment at Sec.  141.2 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (3) Any small water system that complies with the applicable small
system compliance flexibility requirements specified by the State under
Sec.  141.81 and Sec.  141.93 shall be deemed in compliance with the
treatment requirement in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) Lead service line replacements. Lead service line replacements
must be conducted as follows:
    (1) Any water system exceeding the lead action level specified at
(c) of this section must complete mandatory lead service line
replacement. Lead service line replacement must be conducted in
accordance with Sec.  141.84 and must include public education pursuant
to Sec.  141.85.
    (2) Any water system exceeding the lead trigger level specified at
(c) of this section must complete goal-based lead service line
replacement pursuant to Sec.  141.84 and public education pursuant to
Sec.  141.85.
    (g) Service line inventory. All water systems must prepare an
inventory of service lines connected to its distribution system,
whether or not they are owned or controlled by the water system, to
identify those service lines that are made of lead or of unknown
material. The inventory must be prepared in accordance with Sec.
141.84(a).
    (h) Public education and notification requirements. Pursuant to
Sec.  141.85(d), all water systems must provide notification of lead
tap water monitoring results to persons served at the sites (taps) that
are tested. In addition:
    (1) Any water system exceeding the lead action level specified at
(c) of this section shall implement the public education requirements
in accordance with Sec.  141.85(a) and (b).
    (2) Any water system exceeding the lead trigger level specified at
(c) of this section shall provide notification to all customers with a
lead service line in accordance with Sec.  141.85(f).
    (3) Any water system exceeding the lead action level specified at
(c) of this section shall notify the public in accordance with the
public notification requirements in subpart Q of this part.
* * * * *
    (l) Testing in schools and child care facilities. All water systems
must collect samples from all schools and child care facilities within
its distribution system in accordance with Sec.  141.92.
    (m) Violation of national primary drinking water regulations.
Failure to comply with the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec.  141.80
through 141.93, including requirements established by the State
pursuant to these provisions, shall constitute a violation of the
national primary drinking water regulations for lead and/or copper.
0
5. Revise Sec.  141.81 to read as follows:

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

    (a) Corrosion control treatment. Water systems shall complete the
applicable corrosion control treatment requirements described in Sec.
141.82 by the deadline established in this section.
    (1) Large water system (serving >50,000 people).
    (i) Large water systems with corrosion control treatment that
exceed either the lead trigger level or copper action level shall
complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph
(d) of this section.
    (ii) Large water systems without corrosion control treatment that
exceed either the lead trigger level or the copper action level shall
complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph
(e) of this section.
    (iii) Large water systems with corrosion control treatment that do
not exceed the lead trigger level and copper action level but are not
deemed to have optimized corrosion control under paragraph (b)(3) of
this section may be required by the State to complete the corrosion
control treatment steps in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (iv) Large water systems without corrosion control treatment that
do not exceed the lead trigger level and copper action level but are
not deemed to have optimized corrosion control under paragraph (b)(3)
of this section may be required by the State to complete the corrosion
control treatment steps in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (2) Medium-size water systems (serving >10,000 and <=50,000
people).
    (i) Medium-size water systems with corrosion control treatment that
exceed either the lead trigger level or copper action level shall
complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph
(d) of this section.
    (ii) Medium-size water systems without corrosion control treatment
that exceed either the lead or copper action

level shall complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (iii) Medium-size water systems without corrosion control treatment
that exceed the lead trigger level shall complete the treatment
recommendation steps specified in paragraph (e) of this section. The
water system shall complete the remaining steps in paragraph (e) of
this section if it subsequently exceeds either the lead or copper
action level.
    (3) Small water systems (serving <=10,000 people).
    (i) Small water systems with corrosion control treatment that
exceed either the lead trigger level or copper action level shall
complete the corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph
(d) of this section.
    (ii) Small water systems without corrosion control treatment that
exceed either the lead or copper action level shall complete the
corrosion control treatment steps specified in paragraph (e) of this
section.
    (iii) Small water systems without corrosion control treatment that
exceed the lead trigger level shall complete the treatment
recommendation steps specified in paragraph (e) of this section. The
water system shall complete the remaining steps in paragraph (e) of
this section, if it subsequently exceeds either the lead or copper
action level.
    (b) Optimized corrosion control. A system is deemed to have
optimized or re-optimized corrosion control and is not required to
complete the applicable corrosion control re-optimization steps
identified in this section if the system satisfies one of the criteria
specified in (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. Any such system
deemed to have optimized corrosion control under this paragraph and
which has treatment in place shall continue to operate and maintain
optimal corrosion control treatment and meet any requirements that the
State determines to be appropriate to ensure optimal corrosion control
treatment is maintained. Any small community water system or Non-
transient Non-community water system selecting a small system option
under paragraph (b)(4) of this section shall follow the schedule for
that small system option under Sec.  141.81(f). Any small system
selecting a small system option under Sec.  141.93 and which has
treatment in place shall continue to operate and maintain optimal
corrosion control treatment and meet any requirements that the State
determines to be appropriate to ensure optimal corrosion control
treatment is maintained.
    (1) A small or medium-size water system is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control if the water system does not exceed the lead trigger
level and copper action level during two consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods conducted in accordance with Sec.  141.86(b) and (d)(i) or does
not exceed the lead trigger level and copper action level in monitoring
conducted in accordance with Sec.  141.86(b) and (d)(ii)(C) or (D). A
small or medium-size water system is deemed to have re-optimized
corrosion control if the water system does not exceed the lead trigger
level and copper action level during two consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods conducted in accordance with Sec.  141.86.
    (2) Small or medium-size systems that exceed the lead trigger level
but do not exceed the lead and copper action levels during two
consecutive 6-month monitoring periods conducted in accordance with
Sec.  141.86(b) and (d)(i) or small or medium-size systems that exceed
the lead trigger level but do not exceed the lead and copper action
levels in monitoring conducted in accordance with Sec.
141.86(d)(1)(ii)(B). A small or medium-size water system is deemed to
have re-optimized corrosion control if the water system does not exceed
the lead trigger level and copper action level during two consecutive
6-month monitoring periods conducted in accordance with Sec.  141.86.
    (i) Water systems without corrosion control treatment must complete
the treatment recommendation step to be deemed optimized under this
section.
    (ii) Water systems with corrosion control treatment are deemed
optimized or re-optimized if the system meets the requirements of this
section and the State has not required the system to meet optimal water
quality parameters and monitor under Sec.  141.87(d).
    (3) Any water system is deemed to have optimized or re-optimized
corrosion control if it submits results of tap water monitoring in
accordance with Sec.  141.86 demonstrating that the 90th percentile tap
water lead level is less than or equal to the practical quantitation
level of 0.005 mg/L for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods.
    (i) [Reserved].
    (ii) Any water system deemed to have optimized or re-optimized
corrosion control in accordance with this paragraph shall continue
monitoring for lead and copper at the tap no less frequently than once
every three calendar years using the reduced number of sites specified
in Sec.  141.86(c) and collecting samples at times and locations
specified in Sec.  141.86(d)(4)(iv).
    (iii) Any water system deemed to have optimized or re-optimized
corrosion control pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the State in
writing pursuant to Sec.  141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming long-term change
in treatment or addition of a new source as described in Sec.  141.90.
The State must review and approve the addition of a new source or long-
term change in water treatment before it is implemented by the water
system. The State may require any such water system to conduct
additional monitoring or to take other action the State deems
appropriate to ensure that such water system maintains minimal levels
of corrosion control in its distribution system.
    (iv) A water system is not deemed to have optimized or re-optimized
corrosion control under this paragraph and shall implement corrosion
control treatment pursuant to (b)(3)(v) of this section unless it meets
the copper action level.
    (v) Any water system triggered into corrosion control because it is
no longer deemed to have optimized or re-optimized corrosion control
under this paragraph shall implement corrosion control treatment in
accordance with the deadlines in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section.
The time period for completing each step shall be triggered by the date
the sampling was conducted showing that the water system no longer
meets the requirements to be deemed to have optimized or re-optimized
corrosion control under this paragraph.
    (4) Any small system selecting a small system compliance option
shall monitor and follow the small system option steps described in
Sec.  141.93.
    (c) Corrosion control steps completion for small and medium-size
water systems without corrosion control treatment. (1) Any small or
medium-size water system that is required to complete the corrosion
control steps in paragraph (e) of this section due to its exceedance of
the lead or copper action level may cease completing the treatment
steps after paragraph (e), Step 2 of this section, when the water
system meets both action levels during each to two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods conducted pursuant to Sec.  141.86 and submits the
results to the State. Any such system required to conduct a corrosion
control treatment study under paragraph (e), Step 3 of this section,
shall complete the study and paragraph (e), Step 4 of this section,
unless the water system meets both action levels during each of two
consecutive six-month monitoring periods prior to the start of the
study. If any such water system thereafter exceeds the lead or copper
action level during any

monitoring period, the water system (or the State) shall recommence
completion of the applicable treatment steps, beginning with the first
treatment step which was not previously completed in its entirety, and
complete all the steps through installation of optimal corrosion
control treatment (paragraph (e), Step 5 of this section). The State
may require a water system to repeat treatment steps previously
completed by the water system when the State determines that this is
necessary to implement the treatment requirements of this section. The
State shall notify the system in writing of such a determination and
explain the basis for its decision. The requirement for any small or
medium-size water system to implement corrosion control treatment steps
in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section (including water
systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section) is triggered whenever any small or medium-size
water system exceeds the lead or copper action level.
    (2) Any small or medium-size water system that is required to
complete the corrosion control steps in paragraph (e) of this section
due to its exceedance of the lead trigger level may cease completing
the treatment steps after paragraph (e), Step 2 of this section. Any
such system required to conduct a corrosion control treatment study
under paragraph (e), Step 3 of this section, shall complete the study
and paragraph (e), Step 4 of this section. If any such water system
thereafter exceeds the lead or copper action level during any
monitoring period, the water system (or the State) shall recommence
completion of the applicable treatment steps, beginning with the first
treatment step which was not previously completed in its entirety and
complete all the steps through installation of optimal corrosion
control treatment paragraph (e), (Step 5) of this section. The State
may require a water system to repeat treatment steps previously
completed by the water system when the State determines that this is
necessary to implement the treatment requirements of this section. The
State shall notify the system in writing of such a determination and
explain the basis for its decision. The requirement for any small or
medium-size water system to implement corrosion control treatment steps
in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section (including water
systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control under paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section) is triggered whenever any small or medium-
size water system exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action
level.
    (d) Treatment steps and deadlines for water systems re-optimizing
corrosion control treatment. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section, water systems with corrosion control treatment shall
complete the following corrosion control treatment steps (described in
the referenced portions of Sec. Sec.  141.82, 141.86 and 141.87) by the
indicated time periods.
    (1) Step 1. The water system shall complete the initial tap
sampling (Sec.  141.86(d)(1) and Sec.  141.87(b)) until the water
system either exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action level or
becomes eligible for reduced monitoring under Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(ii)(A). A water system exceeding the lead trigger level or
copper action level shall recommend optimal corrosion control treatment
(Sec.  141.82(a)(5) or (6) or (7)) within six months after the end of
the monitoring period during which it exceeds either the lead trigger
level or copper action level.
    (2) Step 2. (i) Large water systems that exceed the lead trigger
level or copper action level shall conduct the corrosion control
studies for re-optimization under paragraph (d), Step 3 of this
section.
    (ii) Within 12 months after the end of the monitoring period during
which a small or medium-size water system with corrosion control
treatment exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action level, the
State may require the water system to perform corrosion control studies
for re-optimization (Sec.  141.81(d)(2) or (3)). If the State does not
require the system to perform such studies, the State shall specify re-
optimized corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)(3) or (4))
within the following timeframes:
    (A) For medium-size water systems, within 12 months after the end
of the monitoring period during which such water system exceeds the
lead trigger level or copper action level.
    (B) For small water systems, within 18 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such water system exceeds the lead
trigger level or copper action level.
    (3) Step 3. (i) Large water systems that exceed the lead trigger
level or copper action level shall complete the corrosion control
treatment studies for re-optimization within 18 months.
    (ii) If the State requires a water system to perform corrosion
control studies under paragraph (d), Step 2 of this section, the water
system shall complete the studies (Sec.  141.82(c)(1)) within 18 months
after the State requires that such studies be conducted.
    (4) Step 4. (i) The State shall designate re-optimized corrosion
control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)(3)) within six months after
completion of paragraph (d)(3)(i), Step 3 of this section.
    (ii) If the water system has performed corrosion control studies
under paragraph (d), Step 2 of this section, the State shall designate
re-optimized corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)(3) or (4)
within six months after completion of paragraph (d), Step 3(ii) of this
section.
    (5) Step 5. (i) Large water systems shall complete modifications to
corrosion control treatment to have re-optimized corrosion control
treatment installed within 12 months after completion of paragraph (d),
Step 4(i) of this section.
    (ii) Small or medium-size water systems that exceed the lead
trigger level or copper action level shall install re-optimized
corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(e)(3) or (4)) within 12
months after completion of paragraph (d), Step 4(ii) of this section.
    (6) Step 6. Water systems shall complete follow-up sampling (Sec.
141.86(d)(2) and Sec.  141.87(c)) within 12 months after completion of
paragraph (d), Step 5(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (7) Step 7. The State shall review the water system's installation
of treatment and designate optimal water quality control parameters
(Sec.  141.82(f)(1)) within six months of completion of paragraph
(d)(6), Step 6 of this section.
    (8) Step 8. The water system shall operate in compliance with the
State-designated optimal water quality control parameters (Sec.
141.82(g)(1)) and continue to conduct tap sampling (Sec.  141.86(d)(3)
and water quality parameter monitoring under Sec.  141.87(d)).
    (e) Treatment steps and deadlines for small and medium-size systems
without corrosion control treatment. Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, small and medium-size water systems without
corrosion control treatment shall complete the following corrosion
control treatment steps (described in the referenced portions of
Sec. Sec.  141.82, 141.86 and 141.87) by the indicated time periods.
    (1) Step 1. The water system shall complete the initial tap
sampling (Sec.  141.86(d)(1) and Sec.  141.87(b)) until the water
system either exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action level or
becomes eligible for reduced monitoring under Sec.  141.86(d)(4)(i)(A)
or (B). A water system exceeding the lead trigger level or copper
action level shall recommend optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec.
141.82(a)(1) or (2) or (3) or (4)) within six months after the end of

the monitoring period during which it exceeds either the lead trigger
level or copper action level.
    (2) Step 2. Within 12 months after the end of the monitoring period
during which a water system exceeds the lead trigger level or copper
action level, the State may require the water system to perform
corrosion control studies (Sec.  141.82(b)(1)); the State shall notify
the system in writing of this requirement. If the State does not
require the system to perform such studies, the State shall specify
optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)(1) or (2)) within
the following timeframes:
    (i) For medium-size water systems, within 18 months after the end
of the monitoring period during which such water system exceeds the
lead trigger level or copper action level.
    (ii) For small water systems, within 24 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such water system exceeds the lead
trigger level or copper action level.
    (3) Step 3. If the State requires a water system to perform
corrosion control studies under paragraph (e), Step 2 of this section,
the water system shall complete the studies (Sec.  141.82(c)(1)) within
18 months after the State notifies the system in writing that such
studies must be conducted.
    (4) Step 4. If the water system has performed corrosion control
studies under paragraph (e), Step 2 of this section, the State shall
designate optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)(1) or
(2)) within six months after completion of paragraph (e), Step 3 of
this section.
    (5) Step 5. Any water system that exceeds the lead or copper action
level after the State designates optimal corrosion control treatment
under paragraph (e), Step 4 of this section shall install optimal
corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(e)(1) or (2)) within 24
months.
    (6) Step 6. The system shall complete follow-up sampling (Sec.
141.86(d)(2)(i) and Sec.  141.87(c) within 12 months after completion
of paragraph (e), Step 5 of this section.
    (7) Step 7. The State shall review the water system's installation
of treatment and designate optimal water quality control parameters
(Sec.  141.82(f)(1)) within six months of completion of paragraph (e),
Step 6 of this section.
    (8) Step 8. The water system shall operate in compliance with the
State-designated optimal water quality control parameters (Sec.
141.82(g)(1)) and continue to conduct tap sampling (Sec.  141.86(d)(3)
and water quality parameter monitoring under Sec.  141.87(d)).
    (f) Treatment steps and deadlines for small community water systems
and Non-transient Non-community water systems using small system
compliance flexibility options under Sec.  141.93.
    Small water systems selecting the corrosion control small system
compliance flexibility option shall complete the following steps by the
indicated time periods.
    (1) Step 1. The water system shall complete the initial tap
sampling (Sec.  141.86(d)(1) and Sec.  141.87(b)) until the water
system either exceeds the lead trigger level or copper action level or
becomes eligible for reduced monitoring under Sec.  141.86(d)(4)(i)(A)
or (B). A water system exceeding the lead trigger level or copper
action level shall recommend a small system compliance flexibility
option (Sec.  141.93(a) or (b)) within six months after the end of the
monitoring period during which it exceeds either the lead trigger level
or copper action level.
    (2) Step 2. The State shall approve in writing the recommended
small system treatment option or designate another small system
treatment option or require the water system to optimize or re-optimize
corrosion control treatment within six months of completion of
paragraph (f), Step 1 of this section. Water systems required by the
State to optimize or re-optimize corrosion control treatment shall
follow the schedules in paragraphs (d) or (e) of this section.
    (3) Step 3. (i) Small water systems using the lead service line
replacement compliance flexibility option under Sec.  141.93.
    (A) Small water systems shall begin the lead service line
replacement program and must begin to replace lead service line lines
at a rate approved by the State within one year after State approval
under paragraph (f), Step 2 of this section.
    (B) Small water systems shall continue to replace lead service
lines at a rate approved by the State and shall complete replacement of
all lead service lines no later than 15 years after commencement of the
program.
    (ii) Small water systems using the point-of-use (POU) device
compliance flexibility option under Sec.  141.93.
    (A) Small water systems shall install POU devices at the locations
listed in Sec.  141.93 on a schedule not to exceed one year after State
approval under paragraph (f), Step 2 of this section, or a shorter
schedule if specified by the State.
    (B) Small water systems shall operate and maintain the POU devices
until the water system receives State approval to select one of the
other small system compliance flexibility options under Sec.  141.93.
    (iii) Non-transient, non-community water systems using the
replacement of lead-bearing materials option under Sec.  141.93(d)(4).
    (A) Non-transient, non-community water systems with lead service
lines shall replace the lead service line within one year after State
approval under Step 2 and shall complete the replacement of other lead-
bearing materials on a schedule not to exceed one year after State
approval under paragraph (f), Step 2 of this section, or a shorter
schedule if specified by the State.
    (B) Non-transient, non-community water systems without lead service
lines shall complete the replacement of lead-bearing material within
one year after State approval under paragraph (f), Step 2 of this
section, or a shorter schedule if specified by the State.
0
6. Revise Sec.  141.82 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.82  Description of corrosion control treatment requirements.

    Each system shall complete the corrosion control treatment
requirements described as follows, which are applicable to such system
under Sec.  141.81.
    (a) System recommendation regarding corrosion control treatment.
(1) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and water
quality parameter monitoring, large systems without corrosion control
treatment that exceed the lead trigger level or medium-size water
systems without corrosion control treatment that exceed either the lead
or copper action level shall recommend designation of one or more of
the corrosion control treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section as the optimal corrosion control treatment for that system. The
State may require the system to conduct additional water quality
parameter monitoring in accordance with Sec.  141.87(b) to assist the
State in reviewing the system's recommendation. Large systems must
complete the study in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (2) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and
water quality parameter monitoring, small water systems without
corrosion control treatment that exceed the lead or copper action level
shall recommend designation of one or more of the corrosion control
treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as the optimal
corrosion control treatment for that system or one of the small system
options listed in paragraph Sec.  141.93. The State may require the
system to conduct additional water quality parameter monitoring in
accordance

with Sec.  141.87(b) to assist the State in reviewing the system's
recommendation.
    (3) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and
water quality parameter monitoring, any medium-size water systems
without corrosion control treatment exceeding the lead trigger level
shall recommend designation of one or more of the corrosion control
treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as the optimal
corrosion control treatment for that system. This corrosion control
treatment shall be installed if the lead or copper action level is
subsequently exceeded. The State may require the system to conduct
additional water quality parameter monitoring in accordance with Sec.
141.87(b) to assist the State in reviewing the system's recommendation.
    (4) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and
water quality parameter monitoring, any small water system without
corrosion control treatment exceeding the lead trigger level shall
recommend designation of one or more of the corrosion control
treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as the optimal
corrosion control treatment for that system or shall recommend State
approval to elect one of the small system compliance options listed in
paragraph Sec.  141.93. This corrosion control treatment or small
system option shall be implemented if the lead or copper action level
is subsequently exceeded. The State may require the system to conduct
additional water quality parameter monitoring in accordance with Sec.
141.87(b) to assist the State in reviewing the system's recommendation.
    (5) Based upon the results of lead and copper tap sampling and
water quality parameter monitoring, any large or medium system with
corrosion control treatment that exceeds the lead trigger level shall
conduct a re-optimization evaluation of the existing corrosion control
treatment and make a recommendation to the State for modification (if
any) of the designation of optimal corrosion control treatment. This
re-optimization evaluation shall include an evaluation of other
corrosion control treatments listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section
to determine the optimal corrosion control treatment. The State may