Proposed Rule2023-06674
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 5, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule in accordance with America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 (AWIA, 2018) and to require reporting of compliance monitoring data to EPA. The proposed revisions to improve the CCR would improve the readability, clarity, and understandability of CCRs as well as the accuracy of the information presented, improve risk communication in CCRs, incorporate electronic delivery options, provide supplemental information regarding lead levels and control efforts, and require systems who serve 10,000 or more persons to provide CCRs to customers biannually (twice per year). The proposed requirements for states to submit to EPA compliance monitoring data for all National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) submitted by systems to the State would enhance EPA's oversight capabilities.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20092-20115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06674]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260; FRL-8464-02-OW]
RIN 2040-AG14
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence
Report Rule Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule in accordance with
America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 (AWIA, 2018) and to
require reporting of compliance monitoring data to EPA. The proposed
revisions to improve the CCR would improve the readability, clarity,
and understandability of CCRs as well as the accuracy of the
information presented, improve risk communication in CCRs, incorporate
electronic delivery options, provide supplemental information regarding
lead levels and control efforts, and require systems who serve 10,000
or more persons to provide CCRs to customers biannually (twice per
year). The proposed requirements for states to submit to EPA compliance
monitoring data for all National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWRs) submitted by systems to the State would enhance EPA's
oversight capabilities.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2023. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 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 May 5, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2022-0260, by one of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20460.
<bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260 for this rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, including any
personal information provided. Additional instructions on commenting or
visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets
generally, is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical information contact: Sarah Bradbury, Drinking Water
Capacity and Compliance Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number (202) 564-3116; email
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e4c5c4f4a4c5b5c57005d4f5c4f466e4b5e4f00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2d0c0d3d6d0c7c0cb9cc1d3c0d3daf2d7c2d39cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>.
For general information contact: EPA at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92ddd5c5d6c5d1d1c0e0f7e4fbe1fbfdfce1d2f7e2f3bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9a6aebeadbeaaaabb9b8c9f809a8086879aa98c9988c78e869f">[email protected]</span></a>
or visit the agency's website at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ccr/consumer-confidence-report-rule-revisions">https://www.epa.gov/ccr/consumer-confidence-report-rule-revisions</a>, for general information about the
Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to EPA. We use
acronyms in this preamble. For reference purposes, EPA defines the
following acronyms here:
ACS American Community Survey
ALE Action Level Exceedance
AWIA America's Water Infrastructure Act
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
CCT Corrosion Control Treatment
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMD Compliance Monitoring Data
CWS Community Water System
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GAO Government Accountability Office
ICR Information Collection Request
LCRR Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
LEP Limited English Proficiency
LOE Level of Effort
LSL Lead Service Line
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
NDWAC National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PN Public Notification
ppb Parts per billion
ppm Parts per million
ppt Parts per trillion
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PWS Public Water System
PWSS Public Water System Supervision
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTCR Revised Total Coliform Rule
SBA Small Business Administration
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SISNOSE Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial Number of Small
Entities
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
C. What action is the Agency taking?
D. Why is the Agency taking this action?
II. Background
A. Overview of Consumer Confidence Report Rule
B. Overview of Compliance Monitoring Data Requirements
C. Consultations
D. Other Stakeholder Engagement
E. Supplementary Stakeholder Engagement
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Purpose and Applicability
B. Compliance Date
C. Lead Notification and Corrosion Control Requirements
D. Improving Readability, Clarity, Understandability
E. Improving Accuracy and Risk Communication
F. Report Delivery
G. Compliance Monitoring Data (CMD)
H. Special State Primacy Requirements and Rationale
I. Housekeeping
IV. Request for Public Comment
A. General Matters Concerning Consumer Confidence Reports
B. Timing of Consumer Confidence Reports
[[Page 20093]]
C. Increasing Readability, Clarity, and Understandability of the
Consumer Confidence Report
D. Corrosion Control and Action Level Exceedances
E. General Matters Concerning CMD Requirements
V. Cost of the Rule
A. Estimates of the Total Annualized Cost of the Proposed Rule
Revisions
B. Revisions to Consumer Confidence Report
C. Compliance Monitoring Data (CMD) Costs
D. Qualitative Benefits
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
VII. References
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Potentially regulated persons are Community Water Systems (CWSs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example of potentially affected
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWSs.............................. Community water systems (a public
water system that (A) serves at
least 15 service connections used
by year-round residents of the area
served by the system; or (B)
regularly serves at least 25 year-
round residents).
State and tribal agencies......... Agencies responsible for drinking
water regulatory development and
enforcement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 141.151 of the rule. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a
particular entity, consult the technical information contact listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
The statutory authority for this rule is the Safe Drinking Water
Act, including Sections 1413, 1414, 1445, and 1450. Congress passed
America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) into law on October 23, 2018,
(Pub. L. 115-270 U.S. Congress, 2018) to improve drinking water and
water quality, deepen infrastructure investments, enhance public health
and quality of life, increase jobs, and bolster the economy. AWIA
Section 2008 amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Section
1414(c)(4)(F) to require certain revisions to the Consumer Confidence
Report Rule within 24 months of the date of enactment (i.e., by October
23, 2020). In response to a complaint filed by the Natural Resources
Defense Council on January 19, 2021, and after public notice and the
opportunity to comment, EPA entered into a consent decree that requires
the agency to sign for publication in the Federal Register revisions to
the consumer confidence report regulations no later than March 15,
2024, to comply with AWIA amendments to SDWA Section 1414(c)(4) (Docket
no. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0753). This action proposes revisions to fulfill
the rulemaking requirements of SDWA Section 1414(c)(4)(F).
EPA first promulgated regulations in 1998 to require CCRs after the
1996 SDWA amendments added requirements for water systems to provide
annual reports to each customer of a water system on the level of
contaminants in the drinking water and related information. These
annual reports were part of the ``Right to Know'' provisions added to
the statute in 1996 and designed to increase the amount of information
made available by community water systems (CWS) to their consumers.
Section 2008 of America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (Pub. L.
115-270) amended SDWA Section 1414(c)(4) on Consumer Confidence Reports
by adding a new paragraph 1414(c)(4)(F). This new paragraph requires
EPA to revise the 1998 Consumer Confidence Report regulations to
increase the readability, clarity, and understandability of the
information presented in the CCRs; increase the accuracy of information
presented and risk communication in the CCRs; mandate report delivery
at least biannually by systems serving 10,000 or more; and allow
electronic delivery consistent with methods described in the memorandum
Safe Drinking Water Act-Consumer Confidence Report Rule Delivery
Options (USEPA, 2013) issued by the Environmental Protection Agency on
January 3, 2013. The AWIA amendments also require CCRs to include
information on corrosion control efforts and when corrective action to
reduce lead levels throughout the system is required following a lead
action level exceedance (ALE). As with the original Consumer Confidence
Report Rule, the AWIA amendments direct that the revised regulations
must be developed in consultation with public water systems,
environmental groups, public interest groups, risk communication
experts, the states, and other interested parties.
In addition, AWIA, Section 2011--Improved Accuracy and Availability
of Compliance Monitoring Data--amended Section 1414 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act to add a new section, 1414(j). SDWA Section 1414(j)
required EPA to provide to Congress a strategic plan for improving the
accuracy and availability of monitoring data collected to demonstrate
compliance with NPDWRs by October 23, 2019. These amendments directed
EPA to evaluate challenges with ensuring the accuracy and integrity of
submitted data, challenges encountered by states and water systems in
implementing electronic submission of data, and challenges faced by
users in accessing the data. EPA was further directed to include in its
strategic plan a summary of findings and recommendations on
practicable, cost-effective methods and means that can be employed to
improve the accuracy and availability of submitted data. To meet this
statutory requirement, EPA coordinated with states, Public Water
Systems (PWSs), and other interested stakeholders to inform this
effort. These
[[Page 20094]]
discussions included staff from state drinking water programs, PWSs,
and state laboratories, as well as staff from relevant EPA regions.
Among other findings, the plan identified a strategic need for EPA to
obtain and evaluate monitoring data already collected by states (USEPA,
2022a). Compliance monitoring data (CMD) supports the agency's
oversight responsibilities by providing a more complete picture of
water quality and water system compliance than simple violation
information.
Section 1445(a) of the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes EPA to
require any person (including water systems and States) subject to SDWA
to make such reports as EPA may reasonably require by regulation to
assist the agency in determining whether such person has acted or is
acting in compliance with SDWA. Under Section 1413(a)(1)-(3) of SDWA,
states with primary enforcement authority are required to adopt
drinking water regulations no less stringent than NPDWRs, adopt and
implement adequate procedures for the enforcement of those regulations,
and keep records and make reports with respect to those activities as
EPA may reasonably require by regulation. EPA is proposing that an
annual collection of CMD is needed to improve the agency's oversight of
SDWA compliance. EPA's and states' primary method of monitoring PWS
compliance with the SDWA is the review and evaluation of results of
water samples and operating reports collected by PWSs. Currently EPA
receives information only on water system violations identified and
reported by the state. This does not allow EPA to fully determine if
the water system is in compliance with all of the necessary sampling
and other actions required by regulation. As such, EPA is proposing
that an annual collection of CMD is needed to assist the agency in
oversight of SDWA compliance.
The proposal for annual reporting of CMD is also consistent with
Government Accountability Office report (GAO-11-381) recommendations to
routinely evaluate the quality of selected drinking water data on
health-based and monitoring violations that states provide to EPA in
order to improve EPA's ability to oversee the states' implementation of
the SDWA and provide Congress and the public with more complete and
accurate information on compliance. A complete list of GAO
recommendations can be found at: <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-381.pdf">https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-381.pdf</a>. The annual reporting of CMD is also consistent with the
Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (also called
the Evidence Act), which directs all Federal agencies to build and use
evidence to improve policy, program, operational, budget, and
management decision-making. The collection of CMD will give a more
complete and accurate depiction of water system compliance, which will
improve the decisions EPA makes on oversight, enforcement, and training
and technical assistance actions.
C. What action is the Agency taking?
Consistent with the statutory provisions and purposes described
above, EPA is proposing a rule to (1) revise the Consumer Confidence
Report regulations and (2) establish requirements for states,
territories, and tribes with primacy to report CMD annually to EPA.
D. Why is the Agency taking this action?
In passing AWIA's amendments to the CCR provisions of SDWA,
Congress reaffirmed that Americans have a right to know what is in
their drinking water and where it comes from and highlighted a need for
improvements to the annual consumer confidence reports to increase the
readability, clarity, and understandability of the information, as well
as the accuracy of the information presented and the risk
communication. These proposed revisions would address those needs as
well as require CCRs to include certain information about lead in
drinking water. The proposed rule would also require CCRs to be
distributed more frequently to customers of systems serving at least
10,000 persons. These efforts to improve right-to-know access align
with decades of Congressional direction, including the priorities in
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as well as EPA's Justice40
Initiatives to support small, disadvantaged or underserved communities,
who are likely to have the most difficult time accessing and
understanding information about their drinking water. This proposed
rule would improve public health protection and further the goal of the
1996 SDWA ``right-to-know'' provisions by improving access to and
clarity of drinking water data so that customers of community water
systems can make informed decisions about their health and the health
of their families.
EPA needs more robust CMD to better understand nationwide trends,
evaluate specific issues at individual public water supply facilities,
conduct the agency's required oversight responsibilities, and provide
effective compliance assistance. EPA's current limited access to only
quarterly and annual reports to the Administrator (40 CFR 142.15(a))
provides narrowly based information on system inventory, presence of
violations, and other information. While EPA may ask for additional
data from states on a case-by-case basis as part of the annual (or more
frequent) file review conducted under 40 CFR 142.17, EPA does not
receive CMD currently collected by all states for all NPDWRs. This
means that EPA does not receive information necessary to identify
national trends associated with contaminants. It also means that EPA is
hindered in its attempts to identify and respond to issues at
individual public water systems. Receiving the complete set of data for
systems would allow EPA to identify trends nationally to evaluate and
quantify the effectiveness of treatment methods, compliance with
contaminant levels and other drinking water regulations, and water
system operational issues. In turn, this data would help EPA more
readily identify and respond to problems nationally and at specific
systems that could pose a threat to public health. The complete set of
CMD will provide ancillary benefits, including enabling a more
comprehensive approach to identifying infrastructure needs, and
informing how EPA and states can work together to deliver technical and
funding assistance to water systems in a manner that more effectively
addresses underlying technical, managerial, and financial capacity-
building needs. This information will also allow the agency to identify
trends both geographically and demographically, which will improve
transparency and accountability, and amplify best practices that
maximize direct benefits in these communities. Therefore, EPA is
proposing a new regulatory requirement pursuant to Section
1445(a)(1)(A) and Section 1413(a)(3) of the SDWA requiring all states
to submit CMD to EPA for all NPDWRs annually. EPA's proposed action
will not require any additional data collection by water systems or
primacy agencies, as water systems have been collecting and reporting
CMD to primacy agencies for all NPDWRs for decades.
II. Background
A. Overview of Consumer Confidence Report Rule
CCRs are a centerpiece of the public right-to-know provisions in
SDWA. The information contained in CCRs can raise consumers' awareness
of where their water comes from, help them understand the process by
which safe drinking water is delivered to their homes, and educate them
about the
[[Page 20095]]
importance of preventative measures, such as source water protection,
that ensure a safe drinking water supply. CCRs can promote a dialogue
between consumers and their drinking water utilities, can encourage
consumers to become more involved in decisions which may affect their
health, and may allow consumers to make more informed decisions about
their drinking water. CCRs also reveal important drinking water
information on source water assessments, health effects data, and the
water system.
The SDWA Amendments of 1996 originally created Section 1414(c)(4),
which required community water systems to provide annual CCRs to their
customers with the goal to better protect health of consumers by
providing a detailed report on the state of their drinking water
supply. EPA promulgated the Consumer Confidence Report Rule in August
1998 and the rule established content and delivery requirements for
community water systems (USEPA, 1998). CCRs must include information on
the water system; sources of water; definitions of key terms; detected
contaminants; the presence of Cryptosporidium, radon, and other
contaminants; compliance with the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations; variances and exemptions; and additional required
information. Systems are required to deliver the reports annually by
July 1st through mail or other direct delivery methods. As described in
Section 1414(c)(4)(C) of SDWA and EPA's implementing regulations at
141.155(g), community water systems serving less than 10,000 people may
obtain a waiver from the requirement to mail or otherwise directly
deliver the CCR to each customer; such systems must meet requirements
to provide notice of and access to the CCR in other ways.
Since the original CCR Rule was promulgated in 1998, the most
significant update was to clarify the CCR regulations regarding
electronic delivery in a policy memorandum that responded to Executive
Order (E.O.) 13563 (2011). The E.O. charged each Federal agency to
``develop a plan under which the agency will periodically review its
existing significant regulations to determine whether any such
regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so
as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less
burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.'' EPA identified the
Consumer Confidence Report Rule as one of the regulations to ``explore
ways to promote greater transparency and public participation in
protecting the Nation's drinking water in keeping with E.O. 13563's
directive to promote participation and the open exchange of
information.'' Stakeholders noted that there had been an increase in
the number and type of communication tools available since 1998 when
the Consumer Confidence Report Rule was promulgated. In 2013, EPA
released an interpretive memorandum, Safe Drinking Water Act--Consumer
Confidence Report Rule Delivery Options, along with an attachment
entitled Consumer Confidence Report Electronic Delivery Options and
Considerations (USEPA, 2013). The memorandum describes approaches and
methods for electronic delivery that are consistent with the existing
Consumer Confidence Report Rule requirement to ``mail or otherwise
directly deliver'' a copy of the report to each customer and consistent
with providing flexibility for alternative forms of communication.
B. Overview of Compliance Monitoring Data Requirements
Under SDWA, EPA authorizes states, Territories and Tribes for
primary enforcement responsibility or ``primacy'' for public water
systems. Public water systems are subject to primary drinking water
regulations which include monitoring requirements to ensure compliance
with those regulations. Under 40 CFR 142.14, states, territories, and
tribes with primacy are required to maintain records, including CMD
from these water systems to demonstrate compliance with NPDWRs. EPA
currently requires states to submit quarterly and annual reports to the
Administrator (40 CFR 142.15(a)). These reports are limited in scope
and provide system inventory, violations, and other information. Under
40 CFR 142.17, EPA is required to review at least annually the
compliance of the state, territory, or tribe with the regulatory
requirements for primacy in 40 CFR part 142, which includes adoption
and implementation of adequate procedures for enforcement of drinking
water regulations, including the requirements for systems to conduct
monitoring and collect data.
Compliance and public health protection rely on accurate and
complete data. EPA's Drinking Water Compliance Monitoring Data
Strategic Plan describes that EPA needs CMD to ensure data quality and
national consistency in SDWA implementation, in addition to supporting
informed decision making. EPA and other primacy agencies need data of
known and documented quality and completeness to identify national
trends, understand the effectiveness of different treatment
methodologies, develop effective and appropriate policy decisions,
understand operational issues, and provide appropriate training and
technical assistance. Accurate and timely monitoring data is critical
to EPA's effective oversight of public water systems and primacy
agencies.
Currently there is no national access to drinking water compliance
monitoring data. Following the collection of CMD from primacy agencies,
and in line with the action plan of the CMD Strategic Plan, EPA intends
to make the CMD available to the public. Public access to drinking
water data can empower communities to take necessary public health
actions. Public access will also promote additional accountability for
the water systems, which can lead to improved data quality and
compliance.
C. Consultations
Section 1414(c)(4)(F)(i) of the SDWA requires the agency to consult
with ``public water systems, environmental groups, public interest
groups, risk communication experts, and the States, and other
interested parties'' in developing revisions to the Consumer Confidence
Report Rule. EPA consulted with various stakeholders to solicit input
on the proposed rulemaking.
1. Initial Tribal Consultation on Consumer Confidence Reports
EPA sought input from tribal governments from March 14, 2022,
through June 14, 2022, to better inform the development of the proposed
Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2022c). Upon
initiation of consultation, consultation notification letters were
emailed to the tribal leaders of all federally recognized tribes using
the Bureau of Indian Affair's Tribal Leaders Directory. The letters
provided background information about the forthcoming rulemaking and
the consultation and coordination plan.
EPA also hosted two informational webinars for tribal officials,
which included the opportunity for participants to ask questions and
provide feedback. Tribes were able to comment on any aspect of the
forthcoming rulemaking, and EPA requested specific input from tribal
governments on elements related to potential regulatory requirements of
the proposed Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions and suggestions
that would assist tribal governments in implementing and complying with
the rule. EPA requested tribal input on the following questions.
[[Page 20096]]
a. What concerns about your water do you look to be addressed in
your water quality report?
b. What challenges, if any, do you have when trying to read and/or
understand your water quality report?
c. What resources or tools are needed to support the creation of
water quality reports?
d. What is your preferred delivery format and method for receiving
your water quality report?
2. Supplemental Tribal Consultation With Navajo Nation Indian Tribe
After the initial tribal consultation, the agency expanded the
scope of the rulemaking to include a requirement for primacy agencies
to submit comprehensive CMD annually to the agency. EPA offered
supplemental consultation to the Navajo Nation as a primacy agency who
could be affected by the expanded scope. No additional comments were
received during the Supplemental Tribal Consultation period. Tribal
consultation and coordination were conducted in accordance with EPA
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/tribal/forms/consultation-and-coordination-tribes">https://www.epa.gov/tribal/forms/consultation-and-coordination-tribes</a>).
3. Federalism Consultation
On August 25, 2022, EPA initiated a 60-day Federalism consultation
by hosting a meeting with members of state and local government
associations and invited water utility associations. EPA presented
background information on the proposed rule and sought feedback on key
considerations for the rulemaking. EPA requested feedback on the
content of reports delivered twice a year, support for communities with
large proportions of non-English speaking populations, and the
inclusion of annual collection of compliance monitoring data within the
rulemaking. A summary of the CCR Rule Revisions federalism consultation
and comments received is included with supporting materials in the
docket (USEPA, 2022d).
D. Other Stakeholder Engagement
1. National Drinking Water Advisory Council Consultation on the
Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions
EPA sought recommendations from the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC or Council) in four key areas: addressing
accessibility challenges, including translating CCRs and meeting
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; advancing
environmental justice and supporting underserved communities; improving
readability, understandability, clarity, and accuracy of information
and risk communication of CCRs; and CCR delivery manner and methods,
including electronic delivery. EPA directed the NDWAC to establish a
working group consisting of representatives of public water systems,
environmental groups, public interest groups, risk communication
experts, the states, and other interested parties to assist the
Council.
The NDWAC's Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions working group
consisted of twelve people from public water systems, environmental
groups, public interest groups, and Federal, state, and tribal
agencies. The working group included seven NDWAC members, and one
member each from EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
and Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee. The NDWAC working
group held seventeen meetings to discuss the Consumer Confidence Report
Rule Revisions that were open to the public. The working group heard
presentations and received written public comments during the
development of their recommendations to the NDWAC. Working group
members also participated in a public meeting of the NDWAC, which
included oral and written public comments, to discuss the working
group's preliminary recommendations. The NDWAC working group provided
its final recommendations to the NDWAC in November 2021. The NDWAC
discussed the working group's final recommendations during a two-day
public meeting of the Council on December 1-2, 2021. At that meeting,
the NDWAC conducted deliberations on the working group's
recommendations. The NDWAC provided EPA with its recommendations on
December 14, 2021.
Materials from this NDWAC process, including the Report of the
Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions Working Group to the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council, and Letter to Administrator on CCR
Rule Revision from the NDWAC are available in the docket at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-02/ndwac-consumer-confidence-report-rule-revision-letter-december-2021.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-02/ndwac-consumer-confidence-report-rule-revision-letter-december-2021.pdf</a>. (NDWAC, 2021).
2. Targeted Interviews
EPA conducted separate interviews with nine states, nine community
water systems of varying sizes representing different regions, as well
as a county health official (risk communication expert), a public
interest group, and an environmental justice organization. The purpose
of the interviews with states and water systems was to identify level
of effort, costs, and burden associated with CCR development, delivery,
and compliance, in addition to other issues and challenges with
implementing current rule provisions. The purpose of the interviews
with the other organizations was to discuss experiences related to
drinking water and/or CCRs, including concerns of their members,
outreach and communication strategies, translations, and any other
challenges they experience. A summary of the interviews is included
with supporting materials in the docket (USEPA, 2022f).
3. Virtual Public Listening Session
On April 26, 2022, EPA hosted a virtual public listening session.
During the session, EPA provided a brief introduction/overview of the
project and purpose, and allowed registered attendees to provide input
on 6 topics:
a. Tools that address challenges to developing CCRs.
b. CCR delivery methods, including electronic delivery options.
c. Considerations and concerns related to underserved communities
and environmental justice.
d. Biannual delivery, including timing and content of reports.
e. CCR accessibility challenges and solutions.
f. Improving readability, clarity, understandability, accuracy, and
risk communication of the information presented in CCRs.
EPA announced the listening session in the Federal Register (87 FR
23861, April 21, 2022) and held a 30-day comment period from April 23,
2022, through May 23, 2022. A summary of the verbal comments received
during the listening session is available in the Docket.
E. Supplementary Stakeholder Engagement
The agency issued the final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (Docket
ID EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300) on January 15, 2021. On January 20, 2021,
President Biden issued the ``Executive Order on Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
Crisis.'' (86 FR 7037, January 25, 2021) (``Executive Order 13990'').
Section 1 of E.O. 13990 states that it is ``the policy of the
Administration to listen to the science, to improve public health and
protect our environment, to ensure access to clean air and water, . . .
and to prioritize both environmental justice and the creation of the
well-paying union jobs necessary to deliver on these
[[Page 20097]]
goals.'' E.O. 13990 directed the heads of all Federal agencies to
immediately review regulations that may be inconsistent with, or
present obstacles to, the policy it establishes. In accordance with
E.O. 13990, EPA reviewed the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) to
engage meaningfully with the public regarding this important public
health regulation before it took effect. As part of EPA's commitment to
Environmental Justice, EPA specifically sought engagement with
communities that have been disproportionately impacted by lead in
drinking water, especially lower-income people and communities of color
that have been underrepresented in past rule-making efforts. Feedback
from those discussions related to CCRs and drinking water notifications
were summarized and considered for this rulemaking (USEPA, 2021b).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Purpose and Applicability
EPA is proposing to revise the requirements for the content of CCRs
in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 1414(c)(4) of
SDWA and as authorized under Section 1445(a)(1) and Section 1413(a)(3)
to require states, territories, and tribes with primary enforcement
responsibility to provide EPA compliance monitoring data on an annual
basis. This proposal revises 40 CFR part 141 subpart O and 40 CFR part
142. The proposed changes to 40 CFR part 141 apply to existing and new
CWSs. A CWS is a public water system that serves at least 15 service
connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least
25 year-round residents. EPA considers a year-round resident to mean an
individual whose primary residence is served by the water system, even
if they may not live at the residence 365 days a year (USEPA, 1991).
Out of the approximately 155,000 public water systems in the United
States, about a third--approximately 49,000--are considered CWSs. These
systems range from large municipal systems that serve millions of
consumers to small systems that serve fewer than 100 consumers. The
balance of the water systems in the United States, or approximately
106,000 systems, are either transient non-community systems, which do
not serve the same people on a day-to-day basis (for example, highway
rest stops), or non-transient non-community systems, which serve at
least 25 of the same people at least 6 months of the year (for example,
schools). Because this proposed rule applies only to CWSs, as provided
by Congress in the 1996 Amendments to SDWA, transient and non-transient
non-community systems are not affected by this proposed rule.
EPA notes that many water wholesalers are also considered CWSs. If
such a system does not retail water to any customer, i.e., billing unit
or drinking water hook-up, the system will not have to prepare and
submit a CCR. However, these systems will have to provide the relevant
information to the purchaser, also known as a consecutive system, so
that the purchaser can prepare a CCR and provide it to their customers.
States, tribes, and territories with primary enforcement
responsibility, also called ``primacy,'' are those that have been
authorized by EPA to implement the NPDWRs and associated requirements
in their state or territory. Currently, all states and territories
except Wyoming and the District of Columbia have primacy. The Navajo
Nation is the only Indian tribe to have primacy. EPA is proposing that
states, territories, and Tribes with primacy be required to report
comprehensive compliance monitoring data to EPA on an annual basis.
This proposed rule would not change existing reporting requirements for
public water systems to report compliance data to their primacy agency.
B. Compliance Date
EPA is required by the Consent Decree to sign for publication
``revisions'' to the consumer confidence report regulation not later
than March 15, 2024. EPA is proposing to require compliance with the
CCR Rule Revisions beginning approximately one year after promulgation
of the rule (effective 30 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register). EPA expects that beginning April 1, 2025, CWSs
would have to comply with the new CCR content and delivery requirements
in 40 CFR 141.151 through 141.156. Since CWSs have been preparing and
delivering CCRs for over 20 years, EPA anticipates systems should be
able to meet the additional content and delivery requirements by 2025.
CWSs would need to continue to comply with 40 CFR 141.151 through
141.155, as codified in 40 CFR part 141, subpart O on July 1, 2023,
until the compliance date of the new regulations. EPA is requesting
comments on CCR compliance dates in Section IV of this preamble.
EPA is also proposing that the requirement for primacy agencies to
report compliance monitoring data to EPA take effect in the CFR 30 days
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register in 2024 and
primacy agencies would be required to comply with requirements for
annual compliance monitoring data reporting to EPA beginning one year
after the effective date in 2025. Primacy agencies already are
receiving CMD from all water systems regulated by the Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) program under Sec. 142.14. Prior to the
compliance date, EPA anticipates it will develop the database to
maintain the collected data and provide a CMD extraction and sharing
tool for primacy agencies that use the Safe Drinking Water Information
System State (SDWIS State) and a database extract option for the
primacy agencies that do not use SDWIS State. The agency believes the
proposed compliance date for CMD reporting is practicable because these
extraction tools are easy to use and familiar to many primacy agencies
who currently use similar extraction tools to provide their data to the
agency, for example under the 6-year review program.
C. Lead Notification and Corrosion Control Requirements
AWIA of 2018 amended Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv) and (vii) to require
the information in CCRs on compliance with NPDWRs to include
information on ``corrosion control efforts'' and identification of any
lead action level exceedance (ALE) for which corrective action has been
required during the monitoring period covered by the CCR.
Currently there are an estimated 6.3 to 9.3 million homes served by
lead service lines (LSLs) in thousands of communities nationwide, in
addition to millions of older buildings with lead solder, and brass/
bronze fittings and faucets. Corrosion control treatment (CCT) involves
changing water quality characteristics including alkalinity, pH, and
dissolved inorganic carbon or involves the addition of a corrosion
inhibitor such as orthophosphate to reduce the rate of metal release
into the water. The type of corrosion control efforts implemented by
individual systems vary based on several factors, including the
applicable requirements of EPA's regulations to control lead and
copper. Besides CCT, systems also use other approaches to protect
consumers from exposure to lead and copper, such as establishing a
monitoring plan for lead, copper, and water quality parameters;
treating source water for lead and copper; following state approved
treatment methods of the source water; and/or replacing lead service
lines (LSL). Lead and copper enter drinking water mainly from the
corrosion of the pipes, fittings, and fixtures in the water
distribution
[[Page 20098]]
system, including premise plumbing. EPA is proposing to require CWSs to
describe their corrosion control and other efforts such as studies
conducted to identify corrosion control treatments, application of
corrosion control technologies, as well as regular water quality
monitoring conducted to ensure effective implementation of the
corrosion control treatment strategy. EPA is proposing to add to the
CCR the following definition for corrosion control efforts: Treatment
(including pH adjustment, alkalinity adjustment, or corrosion inhibitor
addition) or other efforts contributing to the control of the
corrosivity of water, e.g., monitoring to assess the corrosivity of
water.
Rather than prescribing specific language to describe corrosion
control efforts, EPA is proposing in the CCR Rule Revisions that
systems develop their own statement to describe their corrosion control
efforts. In Section IV of this preamble, EPA is requesting comments on
whether the CCR Rule should instead include prescribed language.
As part of the LCRR (USEPA, 2021c), EPA revised the Consumer
Confidence Report Rule to require CWSs to report the range of tap
sample lead results in addition to the currently required 90th
percentile lead concentration and the number of samples that are
greater than the lead action level for each monitoring period. Systems
are required to comply with the new LCRR CCR requirements beginning in
reports delivered in 2025. In addition to including information on tap
samples that exceed the lead action level, this rule proposes that the
CCRs include details about what corrective actions are or were taken by
systems to address an action level exceedance. Under the currently
effective LCRR, following an ALE, systems must perform follow-up
actions, including installing or re-optimizing corrosion control
treatment, providing public education, and conducting lead service line
replacement to address elevated levels of lead. The proposed changes to
the CCR rule would require systems to clearly identify in their CCR
that they have an ALE and describe in their CCR the follow-up or
corrective actions they have taken or will take. While the LCRR took
effect on December 16, 2021, and compliance is currently required
beginning on October 16, 2024, the reporting on availability of tap
sample lead results, and the status of service line inventory will not
be required in the CCR until the first report required in calendar year
2025. This coincides with the proposed compliance date for this
proposed rule. The proposed Revised CCR Rule adds a requirement for
systems to include a link to their lead service line inventory if it is
available on a publicly accessible website.
D. Improving Readability, Clarity, Understandability
Consumer confidence reports contain a great deal of highly
technical information. In amending SDWA 1414(c)(4), Congress directed
EPA to revise the regulations to increase the readability, clarity, and
understandability of the information in the CCRs and to increase the
accuracy of information presented, and risk communication. EPA
interprets this statutory directive as setting a goal to make CCRs
easier for every American to understand so that they may make informed
decisions about their health and any risks associated with their
drinking water. This proposed rule would meet that goal and improve the
readability, clarity, and understandability of CCRs by revising the
current mandatory and prescribed language in Sec. 141.153 Content of
the reports and Sec. 141.154 Required additional health information.
The proposed rule would ensure clear and simple messaging that will
streamline the report, focusing on information that is most useful to
consumers. EPA is including new definitions to include in the reports
as applicable, including definitions for ``corrosion control efforts,''
parts per million (PPM), parts per billion (PPB), parts trillion (PPT),
pesticide, and herbicide. Systems may use alternate definitions for
PPM, PPB, PPT, pesticide and herbicide, if the system obtains written
approval from the state to use alternate definitions. EPA is also
proposing the following approaches to improve the readability, clarity,
and understandability of the information presented in the reports:
requiring each CCR to include a summary of key information at the
beginning of the report; allowing water systems additional flexibility
in presenting contaminant data; and supporting meaningful access to
communities with limited English proficiency (LEP).
1. Report Summary
CCRs provide a valuable communication opportunity for the community
water systems to provide information to consumers. As a result, in some
cases, reports can be quite lengthy. During EPA's Retrospective Review,
feedback from stakeholders recommended that reports should include an
at-a-glance summary to improve understandability of reports (USEPA,
2012). The NDWAC expanded on this idea in recommending that CCRs
include a summary page to convey important information and key messages
in a simple, clear, and concise manner at the beginning of the report
(NDWAC, 2021).
EPA agrees with these stakeholder recommendations, and this
proposed rule proposes to add Sec. 141.156 that requires the inclusion
of a summary at the beginning of each CCR. At a minimum, systems would
need to include a summary of violations and ALEs, information on how
consumers can contact the system to receive addition information, and,
if applicable, information on how consumers can receive assistance with
accessibility needs, such as translating the report into other
languages, and a statement identifying that public notifications (PN)
of violations or other situations are delivered with the CCR, as
allowed in 40 CFR part 141, subpart Q. Systems that include PNs in the
CCRs often place them at the end of the report, which may be overlooked
by consumers. Including a statement in the summary about PNs in the
report will help consumers find important information about violations
that may or may not be included in the CCR itself, for example, if the
violation occurred outside of the CCR reporting period. This summary
should, as much as possible, be accessible and understandable to the
public. The proposed rule allows systems the flexibility to present the
information as an infographic to improve clarity and understandability.
EPA believes that a summary included at the beginning of the reports
will allow consumers to quickly view key information and may lead to
more people engaging with the reports. EPA is requesting comments on
requirements for the summary in Section IV of this preamble.
2. Contaminant Data Section
The original Consumer Confidence Report Rule required that data for
detected contaminants subject to mandatory monitoring be displayed in
one or more tables. EPA's intent was to make the presentation of the
data as consumer friendly as possible, while providing sufficient
flexibility so that reports can be improved based on feedback from
customers (USEPA, 1998). Since then, advances in technology and
graphics have allowed data to be presented in clearer and more
understandable ways using readily available software.
EPA is proposing to allow water systems flexibility in formatting
contaminant data to present the information in a more readable and
understandable format. During EPA's
[[Page 20099]]
consultations on this proposal, stakeholders identified the use of
infographics to display information as one way to help improve
understandability of technical concepts in the reports. To reflect this
change, EPA is proposing to replace ``contaminant data table(s)'' with
``contaminant data section.'' As proposed, Sec. 141.153(d), would
require water systems to display the contaminant data in logical
groupings that would make it easier for consumers to read and
understand the contaminant information. For example, this could include
grouping contaminants by source type, contaminant type (inorganics,
organics, disinfection byproducts (DBPs), etc.), or detection values,
e.g., grouping contaminants that have detection values above half the
MCL together. Water systems should not obfuscate or attempt to conceal
the information by presenting contaminant data in such a way that would
make it difficult for consumers to read or understand; however, systems
may continue to use one or more tables to display contaminant data.
Despite allowing additional flexibility on how the information is
presented, this proposed rule would not change the type of information
on detected contaminants that systems need to report in Sec.
141.153(d)(4), such as reporting the maximum contaminant level, maximum
contaminant level goal, the highest contaminant level used to determine
compliance with a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, and the
range of detected levels for each detected contaminant.
3. Explaining Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Results in CCRs
The 1996 SDWA amendments require that once every five years EPA
issue a new list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be
monitored by PWSs. EPA uses the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
(UCMR) to collect data for contaminants that are suspected to be
present in drinking water and do not have health-based standards set
under SDWA. The monitoring provides EPA and other interested parties
with nationally representative data on the occurrence of contaminants
in drinking water, the number of people potentially being exposed, and
an estimate of the levels of that exposure. This data can support
future regulatory determinations and other actions to protect public
health and the environment.
Community water systems are required to report detected UCMR
monitoring results in CCRs. According to Sec. 141.153(d)(7), systems
must present the average and range of contaminants for which monitoring
is required under Sec. 141.40. In this proposed rule, systems will be
required to include a brief explanation of the reasons for monitoring
for unregulated contaminants such as, ``Unregulated contaminant
monitoring helps EPA to determine where certain contaminants occur and
whether the Agency should consider regulating those contaminants in the
future.'' As proposed, Sec. 141.153(d)(7) would allow a water system
to write its own educational statement, but only with approval of the
Primacy Agency. This will improve understandability for consumers by
ensuring that systems explain the UCMR results.
4. Translation Support for Limited English Proficient Persons and
Accessibility Considerations
In 2019, an estimated 22 percent of people in the United States (68
million people) spoke a language other than English in the home, and
8.3 percent of people in the United States (25 million people) were
considered to have limited English proficiency (U.S. Census Bureau,
2021b). According to the American Community Survey (ACS), this is
equivalent to approximately 23 million American households. Individuals
who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a
limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English are
considered Limited English Proficient, or ``LEP.'' Limited English
proficiency can be a barrier to accessing important benefits, services,
or information. CCRs are valuable tools to inform consumers and to
allow them to make informed decisions about the health and safety of
their drinking water. If LEP consumers are not able to read and
understand the reports, or have sufficient access to that information,
it raises equity concerns that some communities may not have as
complete an understanding about the quality of their drinking water as
more proficient English-speaking consumers.
To support implementation of Title VI regulations (40 CFR part 7)
EPA has specified that ``recipients of Federal financial assistance
have an obligation to reduce language barriers that can preclude
meaningful access by LEP persons to important government services''
(EPA, 2004). States that EPA has authorized for primary enforcement
responsibility (primacy) for the PWSS Programs are eligible to receive
grants to assist with developing and implementing their PWSS program.
Currently, all states and territories (except Wyoming and the District
of Columbia), and the Navajo Nation have primacy. In Fiscal Year 2021
(FY21) and 2022 (FY22), each of those primacy agencies received PWSS
grant funds (USEPA, 2021a and 2022h).
EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 141.153(h)(3) to require primacy
agencies to assist water systems in providing meaningful access to CCRs
for LEP consumers in a manner consistent with the Guidance to
Environmental Protection Agency Financial Assistance Recipients
Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination
Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, which can be found at:
<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/06/25/04-14464/guidance-to-environmental-protection-agency-financial-assistance-recipients-regarding-title-vi">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/06/25/04-14464/guidance-to-environmental-protection-agency-financial-assistance-recipients-regarding-title-vi</a> (EPA Title VI Guidance)(2004). As part of their
primacy application or revision, states, territories, and tribes will
need to include a description of how they intend to provide timely
support to LEP drinking water consumers that need assistance with
translation services. In communities with a large proportion of
consumers with limited English proficiency (as determined by the
primacy agency), systems will be required to include contact
information to obtain a translated copy of the CCR or assistance in the
appropriate language. For systems that have difficulty providing
translation support, the primacy agencies are expected to provide
contact information to assist LEP consumers. In addition, EPA is
proposing to require that large community water systems serving 100,000
or more persons develop a plan describing how they intend to provide
meaningful access to the LEP consumers they serve. These systems serve
almost 50 percent of the population and several of these larger systems
already provide translation resources to their consumers. All systems
that receive Federal financial assistance are subject to the
requirements of Title VI to provide meaningful access to limited
English proficient consumers. Large community water systems may use
tools such as the latest census data for the area served, data from
school systems, or data from community organizations or from state and
local governments to help identify LEP populations in their service
area. These systems will need to include with their annual delivery
certifications to their primacy agencies that they have evaluated and
updated the plan as necessary to meet community needs.
For primacy agencies and systems that are recipients of Federal
funding, EPA's existing Title VI Guidance promotes balancing community
needs
[[Page 20100]]
with available resources and allows considerable flexibility in how
CWSs provide meaningful access by applying a flexible and fact-
dependent individualized assessment that balances the following four
factors: (1) the number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be
served or likely to be encountered by the program or grantee; (2) the
frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program;
(3) the nature and importance of the program, activity, or service
provided by the program to people's lives; and (4) the resources
available to the grantee/recipient and costs. Community Water Systems
that serve LEP persons on an unpredictable or infrequent basis should
use the above four-factor analysis to determine what to do if an LEP
individual seeks translation support services from the relevant CWS.
There are steps that the Federal government can take to help primacy
agencies reduce the costs of language services without sacrificing
meaningful access for LEP persons. EPA will consider opportunities to
share tools, resources, and guidance, such as model notification plans,
examples of best practices, and cost-saving approaches, with water
systems, recipient states, and LEP consumers. EPA is requesting comment
on how CWSs and primacy agencies can best provide meaningful access to
LEP customers and what the timeline for providing translation services
to LEP customers should look like.
In EPA's charge to the NDWAC, EPA sought advice and recommendations
from the NDWAC on addressing accessibility challenges in the Consumer
Confidence Report Rule Revision (NDWAC, 2021). The NDWAC recognized
that the specific needs of communities served by water systems vary
greatly from water system to water system. The NDWAC members recognized
that water systems may have customers with unique needs with respect to
accessibility. For example, some customers may need large font copies
of the CCR. In this rule, EPA is proposing that systems must make a
reasonable effort to meet the needs of consumers that request
accessibility accommodations.
E. Improving Accuracy and Risk Communication
AWIA amended Section 1414 of the Safe Drinking Water Act to require
EPA to revise the Consumer Confidence Report Rule to increase the
accuracy of information and risk communication presented in the CCR.
EPA is proposing to prohibit misleading statements by CWSs and improve
risk communication by simplifying overly technical and confusing
language.
1. Misleading Statements
Even though tap water delivered by most community water systems
meets the stringent national primary drinking water regulations,
systems sometimes experience problems resulting in contamination or
loss in pressure that impact water quality. In addition, drinking water
that is not properly treated or that travels through an improperly
maintained distribution system (pipes) may also create conditions that
increase risk of contamination.
EPA is proposing to prohibit water systems from including false or
misleading statements in their CCRs. CCRs are intended to provide
consumers, especially those with special health needs, with information
they can use to make informed decisions regarding their drinking water.
To make informed decisions, consumers need accurate, nuanced reports.
Feedback received during the stakeholder engagement for this proposed
rule indicated concern that some CCRs have misleading images and
statements about the safety of the water that may not be supported by
the contaminant data or other information in the reports. For example,
stating the water is ``safe'' may not accurately reflect the safety of
the water for sensitive populations, such as people with weakened
immune systems, potential lead in drinking water exposure, or other
inherent uncertainties and variabilities in the system, such as the
potential presence of unregulated contaminants or fluctuation in water
chemistry. EPA believes that consumers would benefit from messages
tailored to the system and community to reflect local circumstances,
that also acknowledge that water quality may fluctuate within the
system, or may impact some populations differently, for example,
children, immunocompromised, pregnant people, etc. The agency plans to
support states and community water systems with tools and resources,
such as templates and example language that improve risk communication
without misleading consumers or undermining the public trust in
drinking water.
2. Primacy Agency Approval for Revising Certain CCR Explanation
Consistent with the intent of the original CCR Rule, EPA believes
that water systems should have the flexibility to tailor the
information in their CCRs to reflect local circumstances. For the
required additional health information on lead, arsenic, and nitrate in
Sec. 141.154, systems currently may write their own educational
statements in consultation with their primacy agency. EPA is proposing
to extend this type of flexibility to specific new definitions in Sec.
141.153(c)(5) (i.e., parts per million, parts per billion, parts per
trillion, pesticide, and herbicide); a new requirement for systems to
include an explanatory statement with UCMR results in Sec.
141.153(d)(7); and descriptions of assessments required under the
Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) in Sec. 141.153(h)(7). To ensure
consumers are receiving material that appropriately reflects water
quality and potential health risks, EPA is proposing that systems may
use the language provided in the CCR Rule, or they may develop their
own language, but they will need approval by the primacy agency.
3. Improving Risk Communication
AWIA Section 2008 (SDWA Section 1414(c)(4)(F)(i)(I)(bb) requires
EPA to revise the Consumer Confidence Report Rule to increase the risk
communication in the reports. EPA has received general feedback from
consumers during pre-proposal outreach that the CCRs can be confusing,
overly technical, and in certain circumstances unnecessarily alarming
to some readers.
The NDWAC also made several recommendations that EPA agrees would
improve risk communication. Specifically, the NDWAC recommended
revising, simplifying, and clarifying language in Sec. 141.154. EPA is
proposing revisions to Sec. 141.154(b) and 141.154(c) as part of this
proposed rule. Some of these recommendations from NDWAC, such as
communicating numbers and standards, may be better addressed through
implementation than through rulemaking because of the need for
flexibility to address specific circumstances. For example, EPA can
offer tools and resources to provide examples of analogies to better
convey the meaning of concentrations and units, or infographics to
communicate units of measurements and potential risk, that would be
more meaningful to consumers. Implementation approaches such as these
allow CWSs to select from a suite of potential examples rather than
forcing all CWSs to use identical approaches that may not reflect the
diversity of water systems and communities.
F. Report Delivery
AWIA section 2008 (SDWA Section 1414(c)(4)(F)(i)(II) and (F)(ii))
requires EPA to revise delivery frequency and
[[Page 20101]]
format in the Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions. Systems
serving more than 10,000 people will need to provide CCRs twice per
year, or biannually. In addition, by adopting the option of electronic
CCR delivery, AWIA emphasizes the importance of continuing to find
effective ways to keep the public informed (See 164 Cong. Rec. H8184,
H8226 (daily ed. September 13, 2018). In today's modern society, many
people receive information through sharing from trusted sources. In
this rule, EPA is proposing to incorporate standard distribution
language, similar to requirements in Sec. 141.205(d)(3) of the Public
Notification Rule, to encourage broader distribution of the reports.
1. Biannual Delivery
AWIA Section 2008 (SDWA Section 1414(c)(4)(F)(i)(II)) mandates that
the Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions require community water
systems serving 10,000 or more persons to provide CCRs to customers
twice per year (biannually). This would affect slightly fewer than
5,000 water systems. A community water system that sells water (also
known as a wholesaler) to another community water system (also known as
a purchaser or consecutive system) that is required to provide reports
biannually according to Sec. 141.155 must provide the applicable
information required by October 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, or a
date mutually agreed upon by the seller and the purchaser, included in
a contract between the parties. Systems currently are required to
provide a CCR to each customer annually by July 1st of each year that
contains information and data collected during the previous calendar
year. EPA is proposing that systems serving 10,000 or more persons
deliver a second CCR between July 2nd and December 31st of each year.
EPA is proposing that the report delivered by July 1st continue to
contain information and data collected during the previous calendar
year. The second report delivered by December 31st will include a 6-
month update, if applicable, based on information and data collected
between January 1st and June 30th of the current calendar year. EPA is
proposing to allow a system without a violation or an ALE, or for which
no new information is available for the six-month period between
reports (i.e., information between January and June of the current
year) to resend the original annual report (summarizing January through
December of the previous calendar year). However, a system that has a
violation, an ALE, or new information between January and June, such as
newly available results for Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
from the reporting year, will need to include this information in a 6-
month update that accompanies the original annual report (summarizing
January through December of the previous calendar year) they deliver
between July 2nd and December 31st. Providing an update to reflect any
new violations, ALEs, or information generated between January through
June of the current year will provide consumers up-to-date information
about the safety of their drinking water, without adding additional
burden for most water systems.
EPA believes these changes will meet Congress' intent of providing
critical updates on a timelier basis, while minimizing burden by only
requiring a subset of community water systems to provide an update with
the biannually delivered reports. EPA is requesting comments on
delivery timing in Section IV of this preamble.
2. Electronic Delivery
As part of the Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions, SDWA
Section 1414(c)(4)(F)(ii) requires EPA to ``allow delivery consistent
with methods described in the memorandum ``Safe Drinking Water Act--
Consumer Confidence Report Rule Delivery Options'' issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency on January 3, 2013'' (USEPA, 2013). In
the House Report accompanying the AWIA 2018, the Committee on Energy
and Commerce noted that Americans are increasingly moving away from a
paper-driven society and instead relying on electronic technologies to
access data, including real-time information; however, they also
recognized that ``not all persons have access to or are comfortable
using these means and [intend] that this new option not be used as an
opportunity to avoid making paper copies available to those customers
that want them.'' H.R. Rep. No. 115-380, at 27 (2017).
These are not new concerns. In 2013, EPA issued the Safe Drinking
Water Act--Consumer Confidence Report Rule Delivery Options memorandum
to improve the effectiveness of communicating drinking water
information to the public, while lowering the burden on community water
systems and primacy agencies by taking advantage of these newer forms
of communication. The memorandum includes an attachment entitled
Consumer Confidence Report Electronic Delivery Options and
Considerations (USEPA, 2013). The memorandum interprets the existing
rule language ``mail or otherwise directly deliver'' to allow a variety
of forms of delivery of the CCR, including electronic delivery, so long
as the CWS is providing the report directly to each customer. The
memorandum outlines a framework for what forms of electronic delivery
are and are not acceptable under the original Consumer Confidence
Report Rule.
In the Delivery Options policy memorandum, EPA identified two
different approaches allowable under the current rule that a CWS could
use in providing electronic delivery of CCRs to its bill-paying
customers: (1) paper CCR delivery with a customer option to request an
electronic CCR, or (2) electronic CCR delivery with a customer option
to request a paper CCR. The memorandum also noted that community water
systems should consider a combination of delivery methods for their
CCRs based on available technology and the preferences of their
customer base.
In Sec. 141.155(a) of this proposed rule, consistent with statute,
and the 2013 guidance and current practices, EPA is proposing to
include options that allow community water systems to use electronic
CCR delivery, with an option for customers to request a paper CCR. If a
community water system is aware of a customer's inability to receive a
CCR by the chosen electronic means, it must provide the CCR by an
alternative means. Consistent with the 2013 delivery options memo, EPA
is proposing that systems may mail a paper copy of the report; mail a
notification that the report is available on a website via a direct
link; or email a direct link or electronic version of the report. When
the community water system choses to provide a link to the report, the
notification must prominently display the link and include an
explanation of the nature of the link. Links for CCRs must be active at
time of delivery to prevent confusing customers. Systems that use a web
page to convey the CCR must include all the required information in
Sec. Sec. 141.153, 141.154, and 141.156 so that the customer does not
have to navigate to another web page to find any required CCR content.
This proposed rule also incorporates the NDWAC's recommendation to
require systems that post their CCR on a publicly accessible website to
maintain a report on the website for three years following its
issuance. This is consistent with existing record keeping requirements
for community water systems in Sec. 141.155(h).
While EPA encourages systems to use multiple outreach methods to
enhance ``good faith delivery'' of the reports to
[[Page 20102]]
consumers who do not get water bills, the use of social media directed
at bill-paying customers would not meet the requirement to ``directly
deliver'' the report since these are membership internet outlets and
would require a customer to join the website to read their CCR. The use
of automated phone calls (e.g., emergency telephone notification
systems) to distribute CCRs is not considered direct delivery, because
the entire content of the CCR cannot be provided in the telephone call.
3. Good Faith Delivery
The proposed rule incorporates the NDWAC's recommendations by
expanding examples of ``good faith'' delivery methods to include
mailing postcards to service addresses and/or postal addresses, holding
public forums, sending alert text messages with a link to the CCR to
interested consumers, and using a ``Quick Response'' code, also known
as a QR code, or equivalent in posting materials. A QR code is a type
of bar code that may be read by an imaging device such as a smart
phone's camera.
G. Compliance Monitoring Data (CMD)
Primacy agencies are required under Sec. 142.14 to maintain
records to determine compliance with NPDWRs, including monitoring data.
EPA is proposing that primacy agencies report CMD to EPA annually. The
CMD that primacy agencies would annually report to EPA under this
proposed rule is data that primacy agencies are already receiving from
all water systems regulated by the PWSS program under Sec. 142.14.
The method of delivering the CMD to EPA is up to the primacy
agency. To minimize the primacy agency reporting burden, the primacy
agency could:
(1) Use EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) State
Data Extraction Tool
(2) Submit a database extract and share data documentation
For the first method mentioned above, use of EPA's SDWIS State Data
Extraction Tool, EPA currently provides states with a SDWIS Data
Extraction Tool for state sharing of CMD with EPA for the Six-Year
Review of Drinking Water Standards. For the 42 states that use SDWIS
State, the Data Extraction Tool extracts CMD from the state's SDWIS
State database and packages it in a file that can be submitted to EPA.
Prior to the implementation date for annual CMD sharing, utilizing EPA-
state workgroup requirements input and testing, EPA will enhance the
Data Extraction Tool to allow primacy agencies to automatically extract
and submit the CMD to EPA that would be required under this rule.
For the second method mentioned above, primacy agencies could
submit to EPA a database extract and share data documentation that
describes the data structure and element definitions. EPA expects this
method to be used by the eight states, five territories, and one tribe
with PWSS program primacy that do not currently use SDWIS State.
H. Special State Primacy Requirements and Rationale
1. What are the requirements for primacy?
EPA's requirements for primacy include authority to require
community water systems to provide CCRs. 40 CFR 142.10(b)(c)(vii). Each
state, tribe or territory with primacy must submit complete and final
requests for EPA approval of program revisions to adopt new or revised
Federal regulations, such as this rule, no later than two years after
the final rule is published in the Federal Register; primacy agencies
may request an extension of up to two years in certain circumstances.
40 CFR 142.12(b). This section describes the proposed regulations and
other procedures and policies that states would need to adopt, or have
in place, to implement the Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions
following publication of the final rule, while continuing to meet all
other conditions of primacy in 40 CFR part 142.
2. What are the special primacy requirements?
As discussed in Section III.D.3 of this preamble, EPA is proposing
to require states with primacy to provide meaningful access to CCRs for
limited English proficiency (LEP) consumers, consistent with the
Guidance to Environmental Protection Agency Financial Assistance
Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin
Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons (69 FR
35602, June 25, 2004). As part of their primacy application in
142.16(f), states will need to include a description of how they intend
to provide support for systems who are unable to provide the required
translation assistance and LEP drinking water consumers that need
translation assistance to meet the proposed requirements in 40 CFR
141.153(h)(6). Primacy agencies will also be required to maintain
copies of translation support plans from large systems for 5 years. In
addition, even though the mailing waiver is not a new requirement, EPA
is proposing that states submit with their primacy application a
description of how the state implements provisions in 40 CFR
141.155(g).
As discussed in Section III.H of this preamble, EPA is also
proposing to require that states, territories, and tribes with primacy
over PWSs submit all CMD collected from the PWSs. EPA proposes
revisions to the primacy requirements for annual reporting to EPA by
states (40 CFR 142.15) to include all monitoring and related data for
determining compliance for existing NPDWRs that is required by 40 CFR
part 141 to be reported from a water system to the state to demonstrate
compliance with national primary drinking water regulations.
I. Housekeeping
As part of the Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions, EPA is
proposing minor technical corrections within subsections of 40 CFR part
141, subpart O--Consumer Confidence Reports, described below:
<bullet> 40 CFR 141.152 Effective dates
EPA proposes to revise language in CFR 141.152 Effective dates, by
removing compliance dates which have passed or are no longer
applicable.
<bullet> 40 CFR 141.153 Content of the reports
EPA proposes to revise language in CFR 141.153 Content of the
reports, by removing regulatory text that has been superseded by new or
existing regulations and removing compliance dates which have passed or
are no longer applicable.
<bullet> 40 CFR 141.154 Required additional health information
EPA proposes to revise language in CFR 141.154 Required additional
health information, by removing regulatory text that has been
superseded by new or existing regulations and removing compliance dates
which have passed or are no longer applicable.
The minor technical corrections being proposed in this rule will
ensure consistency between the Consumer Confidence Report Rule
Revisions and existing EPA drinking water regulations. EPA is not
creating any new obligations with these technical corrections.
IV. Request for Public Comment
EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of the proposed revisions
described in this document. While all comments relevant to the Consumer
Confidence Report Rule Revisions and CMD collection proposed in this
document will be considered by EPA, comments on the following issues
will
[[Page 20103]]
be especially helpful to EPA in developing a final rule.
A. General Matters Concerning Consumer Confidence Reports
EPA is requesting comment on what information should be included in
the CCR summary in 40 CFR 141.156. What specific additional information
will increase the readability, clarity, and understandability of the
reports? What information is most important to provide to consumers at
the beginning of the reports, understanding that a summary may be the
only information that some consumers read?
EPA is requesting comment on how to increase accessibility to the
CCR for consumers with specific needs and what challenges those
consumers may face with the current and proposed delivery options in 40
CFR 141.155. Are there any best management practices on accessibility
that EPA should require in the Consumer Confidence Report Rule
Revisions? Are there additional state guidelines that EPA could
consider in the Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions or in
guidance to help states and systems increase accessibility?
Current regulations require that public water systems make a good
faith effort to provide the CCR to non-bill paying customers in 40 CFR
155(b). EPA is requesting comment on how to improve delivery of the CCR
to non-bill paying customers, such as apartment residents. Should EPA
consider additional outreach requirements to enhance awareness for non-
bill paying customers? Would a requirement for water systems to post
information on social media or online list-serves increase consumers
awareness of and access to CCRs?
EPA is requesting comment on the feasibility of lowering the
threshold for systems that are required to post their CCR on the
internet in 40 CFR 141.155(f). Currently community water systems that
serve 100,000 customers or more are required to post their CCR on the
internet. EPA is considering lowering that threshold to include systems
that serve 75,000 or more customers, 50,000 or more customers, or a
different threshold. EPA is also interested in better understanding
what challenges this new requirement may pose to smaller public water
systems.
EPA is requesting comment on the feasibility for systems and states
with primary enforcement responsibility to implement the revised CCR
Rule by the proposed compliance date in 2025. EPA recognizes that the
revisions to improve the readability, understandability, and clarity of
the CCRs is valuable to consumers. However, unlike when promulgating
the original CCR rule, states have existing CCR regulations. Should EPA
consider revising effective dates in Sec. 141.152(a) as follows:
Community water systems in States with primacy for the public
water system supervision (PWSS) program must comply with the
requirements in this subpart no later than [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER
PUBLICATION DATE OF FINAL RULE] or on the date the State-adopted
rule becomes effective, whichever comes first. Community water
systems in jurisdictions where EPA directly implements the PWSS
program must comply with the requirements in this subpart on April
1, 2025. Prior to these dates, public water systems must continue to
comply with the CCR requirements in this subpart as codified on July
1, 2023.
B. Timing of Consumer Confidence Reports
EPA requests comment on the timing and the delivery dates proposed
in the Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions in 40 CFR 141.155(j).
Per the AWIA amendments, community water systems who serve 10,000 or
more customers will be required to deliver the CCR biannually (twice
per year). Should EPA require water systems to deliver the first report
sooner in the year, for example by April 1st and deliver the second
report by October 1st of each year, and why or why not? EPA is
requesting comments on the feasibility of delivering the first report
earlier in the year, such as by April 1st. Should the deadline to
deliver the second report be 3 months or 6 months after delivering the
first report, or some other length of time? Should EPA require that
each report cover the previous 6 months, rather than provide an annual
summary and why or why not? For systems serving less than 10,000
consumers, should the original delivery deadline (by July 1st) remain,
or should the CCR delivery deadline be updated to reflect the first
delivery deadline for large systems (serving 10,000 or more people), if
revised from July 1st following consideration of public comments?
EPA is requesting comment on the proposed revisions to the time
period during which community water systems must certify delivery of
the CCR in 141.155(c). Currently water systems must certify delivery of
the CCR within 90 days of mailing the report, or by October 1st. Would
requiring water systems to certify delivery of the CCR at the same time
the CCR is distributed create any benefits or challenges? Would
requiring public water systems to certify delivery of the CCR within 10
days or 30 days of delivery create any benefits or challenges? Are
there additional delivery certification dates EPA should consider?
C. Increasing Readability, Clarity, and Understandability of the
Consumer Confidence Report
EPA is requesting comment on how to improve the readability,
clarity, and understandability of the CCRs, especially with respect to
how information on detected contaminants is presented in the CCR and
any challenges community water systems face with presenting detected
contaminants in 40 CFR 141.153. Are there revisions to the regulations
that EPA could make that would allow for detected contaminants to be
presented in a clearer and more concise manner?
EPA is requesting comment on how to improve the readability,
clarity, and understandability of the information presented in 40 CFR
141.153(h)(1) that describes contaminants which may reasonably be
expected to be found in drinking water, including bottled water. What
revisions could EPA incorporate into the Consumer Confidence Report
Rule Revisions that could make it easier for consumers to understand
what contaminants may reasonably be expected to be present in drinking
water, including bottled water, and what the health effects of those
contaminants might be?
EPA is requesting comment on how to improve the readability,
clarity, and understandability of the information required by the
Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions in Sec. 141.154 if a public
water system detects arsenic at levels above half the maximum
contaminant level (MCL), or 0.005 mg/L, but less than the MCL, (0.010
mg/L) and nitrate at levels above half the MCL, or 5 mg/L, but less
than the MCL of 10 mg/L. How can EPA revise these educational
statements for nitrate and arsenic to improve the risk communication
for consumers when detections are elevated, but do not exceed the MCL?
EPA is requesting comment on how primacy agencies can best provide
meaningful access to Limited English Proficient (LEP) customers and
consumers in 40 CFR 142.16. How can primacy agencies best provide
translation support to LEP customers and consumers so that they can
better understand the information presented in the CCR? Some ideas for
primacy agencies to provide meaningful access to LEP customers and
consumers include providing a translation support hotline or having
staff that can provide translation services. Additionally, EPA is
requesting comment on what the timeline for providing translation
[[Page 20104]]
services to LEP customers should look like. How soon should a primacy
agency be expected to provide translation services for CCRs to a LEP
customer?
D. Corrosion Control and Action Level Exceedances
EPA is requesting comment on what information consumers would find
most helpful in the CCR when a public water system identifies the
actions being taken to address corrosion control efforts (40 CFR
141.153(h)(8)(iii)) or when a system is required to identify an action
level exceedance (ALE) and describe any corrective actions the system
has or will take (40 CFR 141.153(d)(8)). How can this information be
presented so that consumers can understand what these actions will
accomplish and why they're important? Should the regulation include
either required or optional template language to identify an ALE?
Example template language could be:
During the past year, our system exceeded the [lead or copper]
action level, which means our system is taking corrective actions to
minimize exposures to [lead or copper] in drinking water. Our system
[include the following statements most relevant: is conducting a
corrosion control study; is installing corrosion control treatment
or re-optimizing its existing treatment; (is replacing or will
replace) lead service lines (LSL); is monitoring source water
quality to determine if source water treatment is necessary to
reduce lead (and/or copper) levels at the water source; and/or is
conducting public education, including on how to reduce your
exposure to lead. There is no safe level of lead.].
Should the regulation include either required or optional template
language to describe corrosion control efforts? Example template
language could be:
To minimize exposures to lead and copper in drinking water, our
system (include one or more as appropriate) [regularly monitors
lead, copper and/or corrosion control-related parameters in drinking
water at selected households to evaluate treatment effectiveness;
regularly treats source water for lead and copper; follows state
approved treatment methods of the source water; follows state
approved corrosion control treatment methods; and/or is conducting a
study to identify corrosion control treatments].
E. General Matters Concerning CMD Requirements
EPA would appreciate specific suggestions and comments on the
following areas related to the proposed rule in 40 CFR 142.15 for
annual EPA collection of compliance monitoring data from primacy
agencies:
(1) Methods for limiting burden on primacy agencies as a result of
the proposed requirement to report CMD to EPA, and
(2) EPA and primacy agency partnerships and roles for assuring high
quality compliance monitoring data.
V. Cost of the Rule
A. Estimates of the Total Annualized Cost of the Proposed Rule
Revisions
EPA estimates the total average annual cost of this action would be
$22.2 million. The estimated costs for the CCR Rule Revisions include
those incurred by primacy agencies and community water systems. EPA
categorized the costs into three categories: program costs, CCR
production costs, and CMD reporting costs. EPA discusses the expected
costs as well as documenting the assumptions and data sources used in
preparation of this estimate in the Analysis of the Economic Impacts of
the Proposed Consumer Confidence Reports Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2022e).
Estimated costs for the proposed CCR Rule Revision are heavily
influenced by the following proposed requirements:
<bullet> CWSs serving 10,000 or more persons would provide two
reports per year.
<bullet> All reports would include a report summary.
<bullet> Large systems serving 100,000 persons or more would be
required to identify plans for providing meaningful access to the
reports for consumers with limited English proficiency.
<bullet> All CWSs would provide new language explaining their
corrosion control procedures and describe corrective actions they have
taken to address any lead action level exceedances (ALE) that occurred
in the system during the reporting year.
<bullet> Primacy agencies would report compliance monitoring data
(CMD) to EPA.
Exhibit 1 of this preamble details the EPA estimated annual average
national costs using a three and seven percent discount rate by major
cost component. These numbers transform future anticipated costs
associated with the proposed revised CCR rule requirements in the
present value. The annualized cost for each category of cost, shown in
Exhibit 1 is equal to the amortized present values of the costs in each
category over the 25 years from the year of rule promulgation, 2024 to
2048.
Exhibit 1--Annualized Costs of Alternative Second Report Delivery Options at 3 and 7 Percent Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primacy Community
Cost component agencies water systems Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Costs................................................... $2,935,450 $202,008 $3,137,458
CCR Cost........................................................ 1,723,115 17,300,670 19,023,785
Compliance Monitoring........................................... 67,254 0 67,254
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 4,725,819 17,502,679 22,228,497
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Costs................................................... 2,837,294 285,213 3,122,507
CCR Cost........................................................ 1,723,540 17,035,740 18,759,280
Compliance Monitoring........................................... 67,842 0 67,842
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 4,628,677 17,320,953 21,949,630
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates
can be found in the Draft Information Collection Request (ICR) (USEPA,
2022g), ICR Number 2764.01, which presents estimated cost and labor
hours for the CCR Rule Revisions. Copies of the Draft ICR may be
obtained from the EPA public docket for this proposed
[[Page 20105]]
rule, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260.
B. Revisions to Consumer Confidence Report
1. Program and Administrative Costs
``Program costs'' refers to the actions primacy agencies will take
to adapt their respective CCR programs. They include upfront program
costs associated with revising their program and applying for primacy
as well as ongoing costs associated with program maintenance.
``Administrative'' costs refer to CWS expenditures to prepare for the
new CCR requirements. EPA estimates that upfront and ongoing program
costs for primacy agencies and the upfront administrative costs to CWSs
depend on the role the primacy agency plays in the CCR development
process. EPA grouped primacy agencies into three categories based on
the level of support they provide in the development of CCRs.
2. Ongoing Program Cost Burden Estimation
After adopting the rule revision, primacy agencies, including EPA
regions that have primacy for the PWSS program in Wyoming, District of
Columbia, and American Indian PWSs, incur costs on an ongoing basis to
administer the rule. In the case of the CCR Revisions, each primacy
agency will collect and review data annually to determine which CWSs
will have additional reporting requirements, i.e., biannual delivery
and translation. EPA assumed that primacy agencies will not incur
general program maintenance activities (such as ongoing staff training)
because they already conduct those activities under the original rule.
Similarly, EPA assumed ongoing administrative costs for CWSs will be
zero because CWS already perform ongoing program administrative
activities for the original CCR Rule.
3. Community Water System Administrative Costs
EPA assumed that CWSs will incur upfront administrative costs not
directly related to the production of CCRs. These costs include
reviewing training materials received from primacy agencies and
training staff to produce CCRs in compliance with the rule revisions.
EPA assumed ongoing administrative costs for CWSs will be zero because
CWS already perform ongoing program administrative activities for the
original CCR Rule. EPA assumed that upfront administrative costs for
CWSs will depend on the level of assistance the primacy agency provides
to CWSs in the development of their CCRs.
4. Costs To Revise the Consumer Confidence Report
The proposed rule will require CWSs incorporate new content
requirements in their CCRs. EPA also estimated the costs for primacy
agencies that provide support to CWS to comply with new CCR
requirements. For purposes of cost modeling, ``CCR production costs''
refer to the burden that CWSs, and primacy agencies that support CWSs,
would incur because of content changes and delivery changes to the CCR.
These changes include:
<bullet> Costs of providing access to the CCR to populations with
limited English proficiency
<bullet> Costs of developing a summary page for the CCR
<bullet> Costs of developing corrosion control language and
descriptions of corrective actions following an ALE (if applicable) for
the CCR
<bullet> Costs of providing a second CCR each year for CWSs serving
10,000 or more people
C. Compliance Monitoring Data (CMD) Costs
As part of the CCR revisions, EPA is proposing to collect CMD from
primacy agencies on an annual basis. EPA estimated that the change will
require updates to 66 ``data systems'' reporting CMD. These include
data systems for 49 states, five territories, the Navajo Nation, nine
direct implementation tribal programs (as EPA Regions), DC (as EPA
Region 3), and Wyoming (as EPA Region 8). The cost estimate includes
the upfront costs associated with setting up and running the software
necessary to extract the CMD for the first time, and ongoing costs
associated with subsequent data extraction and submittals.
To capture this difference more accurately in costs, EPA assigned
reporting agencies to two data system categories:
<bullet> Reporting agencies that use SDWIS State: 48.
<bullet> Reporting agencies that do not use SDWIS State: 18.
1. Upfront Costs
Before adopting the CMD reporting previsions of the CCR Rule
Revisions, reporting agencies must first adjust their existing programs
to support its implementation or develop a new program to do so. These
upfront costs include staff training and setting up a reporting system.
That is, reporting agencies that currently use SDWIS State will have a
lower level of effort (LOE) burden than those that do not currently use
SDWIS State.
2. Ongoing Costs
After adopting the CMD reporting provisions of the Consumer
Confidence Report Rule Revisions, primacy agencies, including EPA
regions that have primacy for the PWSS program in Wyoming, DC, and
American Indian PWSs, will incur costs on an ongoing basis to report
CMD to EPA. Specifically, each reporting agency will need resources to
maintain their reporting systems.
D. Qualitative Benefits
The effects of the revisions to the CCR are difficult to quantify,
however,
EPA anticipated that the primary benefit of the proposed Revised
CCR Rule is that the public will be more informed, given the following
reasons: increased accessibility for Limited English proficiency
consumers; improved readability by allowing CWSs the flexibility to
present contaminant data in a more consumer-friendly format; enhanced
clarity by including report summaries at the beginning of the report;
improved accuracy by prohibiting false or misleading statements in
their reports; expanded communication related to lead by including
corrosion control efforts and corrective actions being taken following
an action level exceedance (ALE); increased frequency of delivery by
large systems; added delivery method options; and enhanced transparency
for the public and EPA oversight as a result of collecting
comprehensive CMD from primacy agencies.
Together, these changes will lead to better-informed consumers. A
more informed public is better equipped to make decisions about their
health, including when deciding whether to use water filters or to use
bottled water to bottle-feed infants. A more informed public may also
be more likely to engage in the decision-making process with their
local water system. When a drinking water consumer has more information
and a better understanding, their confidence can increase, consequently
building their trust in their CWS. This is especially critical given
that many CWSs choose to use the CCRs as a communication piece with
their consumers to inform them about other relevant issues for the
system.
[[Page 20106]]
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a non-significant regulatory action. EPA prepared an
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this
action. This analysis, the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Consumer
Confidence Report Rule Revisions, is available in the docket and is
summarized in Section V of this preamble.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned
the Agency's ICR number 2764.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The major
information requirements concern public water system (PWS), primacy
agency, and laboratory activities to implement the rule including
recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., the burden and costs
for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not
associated with contaminant-specific rulemakings), providing training
to state and PWS employees on EPA information collection tool, updating
their monitoring data systems, and reviewing system monitoring data.
This ICR provides preliminary burden and cost estimates for the
Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions and CMD collection.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents/affected entities
are community water systems and states.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Under this proposed rule the
respondent's obligation to respond is mandatory. Section 1414(c)(4)
requires ``each community water system to mail, or provide by
electronic means, to each customer of the system at least once annually
a report on the level of contaminants in the drinking water purveyed by
that 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: Total respondents, as proposed,
include 66 primacy agencies (50 states plus the District of Columbia,
U.S. territories, EPA Regions conducting direct implementation of
tribal primacy, and one tribal nation), 48,529 are CWSs, for a total of
48,595 respondents.
Frequency of response: The frequency of response varies across
respondents and year of implementation. In the initial 3-year ICR
period for the CCR Rule Revision, systems will continue to deliver
reports annually until the proposed compliance date of 2025. Beginning
in 2025, systems serving 10,000 or more people will be required to
provide report biannually, or twice per year. Systems serving 100,000
or more will be required to submit a plan to provide meaningful access
by July 1, 2025. Primacy agencies will be required to submit
comprehensive compliance monitoring data to EPA beginning in 2025.
Total estimated burden: 331,967 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $22.2 million (per year), includes $6.71
million annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified at the
beginning of this proposed rule. EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB
must receive comments no later than June 5, 2023.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Act
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs 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 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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 (SBA), and finalized the small water
system threshold in the agency's Consumer Confidence Report regulation
(63 FR 44524, August 19, 1998). As stated in that final rule, the
alternative definition is applied to this proposed regulation.
There are approximately 45,000 small entities subject to the
requirements of the proposed CCR Rule Revisions that serve fewer than
10,000 people.
The agency has determined that no small entities (zero percent)
will experience an impact of greater than one percent of average annual
revenues. Details of this analysis are presented in the Docket (EPA-HQ-
OW-2022-0260).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
minimal enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal governments or
the private sector.
Based on the cost estimates detailed in Section V of this preamble,
EPA determined that compliance costs in any given year would be below
the threshold set in UMRA, with maximum single-year costs of
approximately $22.2 million dollars. EPA has determined that this
proposed rule contains a Federal mandate that would not 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.
This rule will establish requirements that affect small community
water systems. However, EPA has determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because the regulation requires minimal expenditure
of resources.
[[Page 20107]]
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
EPA has determined that this action will have minor federalism
implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
EPA did conclude that this proposed rule may be of interest to
states because it may impose direct compliance costs on public water
systems and/or primacy agencies and the Federal government will not
provide the funds necessary to pay those costs. As a result of this
determination, EPA held a Federalism Consultation with state and local
government and partnership originations on August 25, 2022, to allow
them the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input into its
development. EPA invited the following national organizations
representing state and local government and partnership organizations
to participate in the consultation: the National Governors Association,
National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, United
States Conference of Mayors, National Conference of State Legislatures,
Environmental Council of the States, Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies, American Water Works Association, Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators, Association of Clean Water
Administrators, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials,
National Rural Water Association, National Water Resources Association,
and Western States Water Council to request their input on this
rulemaking.
In addition to input received during the meetings, EPA provided an
opportunity to receive written input within 60 days after the initial
meeting. A summary report of the views expressed during the Federalism
consultation is available in the Docket.
F. 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 described previously,
the proposed CCR Rule Revision would apply to all CWS, and would
requires systems serving more than 10,000 people to provide reports
biannually, or twice per year. Information in the SDWIS/Fed water
system inventory indicates there are approximately 711 total tribal
systems, including 19 large tribal CWSs (serving more than 10,001
customers). The rule would also impact a tribal government that has
primary enforcement authority (primacy) for PWSs on tribal lands.
Consistent with EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011), EPA consulted with Tribal officials during
the development of this action to gain an understanding of Tribal views
of potential revisions to specific areas of the Consumer Confidence
Report Rule. The start of the initial tribal consultation and
coordination period began on March 14, 2022, during which a tribal
consultation notification letter was mailed to tribal leaders of
federally recognized tribes. During the initial consultation period EPA
hosted two identical national webinars with interested tribes on March
22, 2022, and April 7, 2022, to request input and provide rulemaking
information to interested parties. The close of the initial
consultation period and deadline for feedback and written comments to
EPA was June 14, 2022. EPA received both verbal and written comments
during the two informational webinars. A summary of the CCR Rule
Revisions tribal consultation and comments received is included with
supporting materials in the docket (USEPA, 2022c).
Preceding the conclusion of the initial tribal consultation period,
EPA began considering additional revisions to the forthcoming CCR Rule
Revision that would expand the scope of the rule revision to include a
requirement for primacy agencies to submit comprehensive CMD annually
to the agency. However, this revision was not described during the
initial consultation and coordination period. EPA identified the Navajo
Nation as the lone tribal government with primacy and offered
supplemental consultation and coordination with the Navajo Nation to
discuss any potential impacts or concerns about how the Compliance
Monitoring Data submission requirement would affect the Navajo Nation.
All supplemental consultation and coordination processes were conducted
in accordance with EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes. The supplemental tribal consultation period was open
from August 30, 2022, through October 14, 2022. EPA did not receive any
additional comments on the proposed rule during the supplemental tribal
consultation process.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of
the planned regulation on children in federal health and safety
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The
requirements in this proposed rule apply to potential health risks to
all consumers and vulnerable populations and are not targeted
specifically to address a disproportionate risk to children.
However, EPA's Policy on Children's Health may apply to this
action. The proposed revisions to the CCR Rule would continue to
address risks to children from contaminants in drinking water by
informing parents and guardians and will strengthen EPA oversight of
public water systems by requiring the submittal of compliance
monitoring data.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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 and has not otherwise been designated by
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
as a significant energy action. The entities 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 and states,
territories, and tribal agencies that are proposed to be regulated by
this rule already have electrical service. As such, EPA does not
anticipate that this rule will have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the agency is required to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent
[[Page 20108]]
with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) which are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. Where
available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards are
not used by EPA, the Act requires the agency to provide Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation of the
reasons for not using such standards. Because this proposal does not
involve or require the use of any technical standards, EPA does not
believe that this Act is applicable to this rule. Moreover, EPA is
unaware of any voluntary consensus standards relevant to this
rulemaking. Therefore, even if the Act were applicable to this kind of
rulemaking, EPA does not believe that there are any ``available or
potentially applicable'' voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or Indigenous
peoples) and low-income populations.
EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that
exist prior to this action have the potential to result in
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on
people of color, low-income populations and/or Indigenous peoples. EPA
believes that this action is likely to reduce existing disproportionate
and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or
Indigenous peoples by increasing the availability of drinking water
compliance data to the public, improving delivery options of CCRs for
non-bill paying customers and improving the ability of limited English
proficiency (LEP) customers to access translation support in order to
understand the information in their reports. Improved access to
critical information in CCRs can also encourage these consumers to
become more involved in decisions which may affect their health and
promote dialogue between consumers and their drinking water utilities.
CCRs are communication tools used by water systems to provide
consumers information about drinking water quality, including, but not
limited to, detected contaminants and violations. In enacting AWIA of
2018, Congress recognized that EPA needed to improve the availability
and understandability of information contained in CCRs. Members of many
underserved communities may be renters, making them less likely to
receive the same CCR information that bill-paying customers who own
their homes receive through direct delivery. Based on 2021 Census
information (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021a), households who rent are much
more likely to be below the poverty level than households who own their
homes. Often renters do not receive copies of the CCR, as these reports
are often delivered by CWSs to the billing address on file for these
communities, which is often a central management office or property
owner. While these systems are required to make a ``good faith effort''
to deliver CCRs to non-bill paying customers, often times the reports
are not distributed to all community members. At the NDWAC meeting on
September 30, 2021, members specifically expressed their concern about
non-bill paying customers not receiving the CCR (NDWAC, 2021).
EPA is considering options to expand the existing language in the
rule at 40 CFR 144.155(b) for ``good faith'' delivery methods to
include examples of more modern outreach efforts, such as social media
options. EPA is also requesting comment in the rule on how to improve
delivery of the CCR to non-bill paying customers and whether EPA should
consider additional outreach requirements to enhance awareness for non-
bill paying customers, such as requiring landlords to deliver postcards
that alert them when CCRs are available.
In addition to CCRs being difficult for residents of some
communities to access, they often contain technical language that may
be particularly difficult for consumers with limited English
proficiency (LEP) to understand. Based on 2021 data from the U.S.
Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021b), people in limited English
households (i.e., households where no one in the household age 14 and
over speaks English only or speaks English ``very well'') are roughly
two times as likely to be people of color as people in all other
households (i.e., households where at least one person in the household
age 14 and over speaks English only or speaks English ``very well.'').
Limited English proficiency can be a barrier to accessing and
understanding the information presented in CCRs. If LEP consumers are
not able to read and understand the reports, or have sufficient access
to that information, it raises equity concerns that some communities
may not have as complete an understanding about the quality of their
drinking water as more proficient English-speaking consumers. During an
interview with a consumer protection organization, the participants
noted that based on their experience, members with limited English
proficiency that lived in manufactured housing communities had
difficulties getting translation assistance with Consumer Confidence
Reports. The statement in the CCR that suggest LEP consumers should
speak to someone that can help, creates a burden on the consumer to
seek out translation assistance (USEPA, 2022f). See proposed changes to
support LEP consumers in Section III.D in the preamble.
In developing this proposal, EPA provided meaningful involvement by
engaging with a variety of stakeholders to better understand and
address environmental justice concerns. This included interviewing an
environmental justice organization and a consumer protection
organization (USEPA, 2022f). The NDWAC CCR Rule Revisions working group
consisted of twelve people from public water systems, environmental
groups, public interest groups, and Federal, state, and tribal
agencies, including a member from EPA's National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council. EPA specifically sought engagement with communities
that have been disproportionately impacted by lead in drinking water
for the LCRR, especially lower-income people and communities of color
that have been underrepresented in past rule-making efforts as part of
EPA's commitment to Environmental Justice. In considering revisions to
the CCR Rule, EPA reviewed comments from those meetings related to
notifications and CCRs, see Section III.E of this preamble for more
information. Additional information on consultations and stakeholder
engagement can be found in Section II. C through E of this preamble.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in Section II. C. Consultations, Section II. D. Other Stakeholder
Engagement, Section II. E. Supplementary Stakeholder Engagement,
Section III. D. Improving Readability, Clarity, Understandability, and
3. Translation Support for Limited English Proficient
[[Page 20109]]
Persons and Accessibility Considerations of this preamble.
VII. References
164 Cong. Rec. H8184 (daily ed. September 13, 2018) (statement of
Rep. Dingell) <a href="https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/issue-153/house-section/article/H8184-4">https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/issue-153/house-section/article/H8184-4</a>.
NDWAC. (December 14, 2021). [NDWAC recommendations to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on targeted issues related to
revisions to the Consumer Confidence Report Rule].
The White House. (2011). Executive Order 13563. Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review. Federal Register 76(14):3821. January 21,
2011. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Drinking Water System
Improvement Act of 2017. (H. Rpt. 115-380). Washington: Government
Printing Office, 2017. (Y1.1/8: 115-380).
United States. America's Water Infrastructure Act. 2018. Public Law
115-270, 132 Stat. 3765, Title II (October 23, 2018).
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021a). American Housing Survey (AHS). Table
Creator, available at <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive/ahstablecreator.html?s_areas=00000&s_=2021&s_tablename=TABLE9&s_bygroup1=2&s_bygroup2=1&s_filtergroup1=1&s_filtergroup2=1">https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive/ahstablecreator.html?s_areas=00000&s_=2021&s_tablename=TABLE9&s_bygroup1=2&s_bygroup2=1&s_filtergroup1=1&s_filtergroup2=1</a>.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021b). DP02: Selected Social Characteristics
in the United States. U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available at: https://
data.census.gov/
table?t=Language+Spoken+at+Home&g=0100000US$1600000&tid=ACSDP5Y2020.D
P02.
US EPA. (1991). WSG 61A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Memorandum to Drinking Water/Groundwater Protection Branch Chiefs,
Regions I-X, from Connie Bosma (signed by Ray Enyeart), Drinking
Water Branch. Definitions of Types of Public Water Systems and
Populations Served by Those Systems. (August 21, 1991).
US EPA. (1998). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Consumer Confidence Reports; Final rule. Federal Register. 63 FR
44524. August 19, 1998.
US EPA. (2004). Guidance to Environmental Protection Agency
Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition
Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English
Proficient Persons. Federal Register. 69 FR 35602. June 25, 2004.
US EPA. (2009). 2006 Community Water System Survey. EPA 815-R-09-
001. February 2009. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/community-water-system-survey">https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/community-water-system-survey</a>.
US EPA. (2012). Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule Retrospective
Review Summary (EPA Publication No. EPA 816-S-12-001). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-05/documents/epa816s12004.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-05/documents/epa816s12004.pdf</a>.
US EPA. (2013). WSG 189. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Memorandum to Water Division Directors, Regions I-X, from Peter
Grevatt, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. Safe Drinking
Water Act--Consumer Confidence Report Rule Delivery Options (January
3, 2013).
US EPA. (2021a). Final Allotments for the FY2021 Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) State and Tribal Support Program Grants, from
Catherine Davis, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. (March 2,
2021).
US EPA. (2021b). Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions
Stakeholder Engagement: Summary of LCRR Engagement. Office of Water.
US EPA. (2021c). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead
and Copper Rule Revisions; Final rule. Federal Register. 86 FR 4198.
January 15, 2021.
US EPA. (2022a). Drinking Water Compliance Monitoring Data Strategic
Plan (EPA Publication No. EPA 810-R-19-002). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
US EPA. (2022b). FY2022--FY2026 Strategic Plan. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/fy-2022-2026-epa-strategic-plan.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/fy-2022-2026-epa-strategic-plan.pdf</a>.
US EPA. (2022c). Summary Report on Tribal Consultation: Consumer
Confidence Report Rule Revisions. Office of Water.
US EPA. (2022d). Summary Report on Federalism: Consumer Confidence
Report Rule Revisions. Office of Water.
US EPA. (2022e). Analysis of the Economic Impacts of the Proposed
Consumer Confidence Reports Rule Revisions. Office of Water.
US EPA. (2022f). Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions
Stakeholder Engagement: Interview Summary. Office of Water.
US EPA. (2022g). Draft Information Collection Request for the
Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions and Compliance Monitoring
Data Collection. Office of Water.
US EPA. (2022h). Final Allotments for the FY2022 Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) State and Tribal Support Program Grants, from
Catherine Davis, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. (April 21,
2022).
US GAO. (2011). Drinking Water: Unreliable State Data Limit EPA's
Ability to Target Enforcement Priorities and Communicate Water
Systems' Performance. (GAO publication No. GAO-11-381). U.S.
Government Accountability Office. <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-11-381">https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-11-381</a>.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Copper, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Lead service line, National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Copper, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Lead service
line, National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 as
follows:
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
0
2. Amend Sec. 141.151 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (c), and (f); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (g).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 141.151 Purpose and applicability of this subpart.
(a) This subpart establishes the minimum requirements for the
content of reports that community water systems must deliver to their
customers. These reports must contain information on the quality of the
water delivered by the systems and characterize the risks (if any) from
exposure to contaminants detected in the drinking water in an accurate
and understandable manner. This subpart also establishes minimum
requirements large systems must include in plans to provide meaningful
access to these reports for limited English-proficient consumers.
* * * * *
(c) For the purpose of this subpart, customers are defined as
billing units or service connections to which water is delivered by a
community water system. For the purposes of this subpart, consumers are
defined as people served by the water system, including customers, and
people that do not receive a bill.
* * * * *
(f) For purpose of this subpart, the term ``primacy agency'' refers
to the State or tribal government entity that has jurisdiction over,
and primary enforcement responsibility for, public water systems, even
if that government
[[Page 20110]]
does not have interim or final primary enforcement responsibility for
this rule. Where the State or tribe does not have primary enforcement
responsibility for public water systems, the term ``primacy agency''
refers to the appropriate EPA regional office.
(g) The reports must not contain false or misleading statements or
representations.
0
3. Amend Sec. 141.152 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and
(d)(1);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (d)(2) and adding ``;
and'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(3).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 141.152 Compliance dates.
(a) Between [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], and [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER
PUBLICATION DATE OF FINAL RULE], community water systems must comply
with Sec. Sec. 141.151 through 141.155, as codified in 40 CFR part
141, subpart O, on July 1, 2023. Beginning April 1, 2025, community
water systems must comply with Sec. Sec. 141.151 through 141.156.
(b) Each existing community water system must deliver reports
according to Sec. 141.155 by July 1 each year. Each report delivered
by July 1 must contain data collected during the previous calendar
year, or the most recent calendar year before the previous calendar
year.
(c) A new community water system must deliver its first report by
July 1 of the year after its first full calendar year in operation.
(d) * * *
(1) By April 1, 2025 and annually thereafter; or
* * * * *
(3) A community water system that sells water to another community
water system that is required to provide reports biannually according
to Sec. 141.155(i) must provide the applicable information required in
Sec. 141.155(j) by October 1, 2025, to the buyer system, and annually
thereafter, or a date mutually agreed upon by the seller and the
purchaser, included in a contract between the parties.
0
4. Amend Sec. 141.153 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (c)(3)(v);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(4) introductory text;
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(5);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
f. Removing paragraph (d)(1)(iii);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3) introductory text, (d)(3)(i),
(d)(4), (d)(4)(iii) and (iv), and (d)(4)(iv)(B);
0
h. Removing paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(C);
0
i. Removing and reserving paragraphs (d)(4)(vii) and (viii);
0
j. Revising paragraphs (d)(4)(ix) and (x);
0
k. Removing paragraphs (d)(4)(xi) and (xii);
0
l. Revising paragraphs (d)(5), (6), and (7);
0
m. Adding paragraph (d)(8);
0
n. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) introductory text, (f) introductory text,
(f)(2) and (3), (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii) introductory text, (h)(1)(ii)(B)
and (E), (h)(1)(iii) and (iv), (h)(2) and (3);
0
o. Revising paragraphs (h)(6) introductory text, (h)(6)(i) introductory
text, (h)(7) introductory text, (h)(7)(i) introductory text,
(h)(7)(i)(A) through (C), (h)(7)(i)(D)(1), (h)(7)(ii) introductory
text, (h)(7)(ii)(A) and (B), (h)(7)(ii)(C)(2), and (h)(7)(iii)(D); and
0
p. Adding paragraph (h)(8).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 141.153 Content of the reports.
(a) Each community water system must provide to its customers a
report(s) that contains the information specified in this section,
Sec. 141.154, and include a summary as specified in Sec. 141.156.
(b) * * *
(2) If a source water assessment has been completed, the report
must notify consumers of the availability of this information, the year
it was completed or most recently updated, and the means to obtain it.
In addition, systems are encouraged to highlight in the report
significant sources of contamination in the source water area if they
have readily available information. Where a system has received a
source water assessment from the primacy agency, the report must
include a brief summary of the system's susceptibility to potential
sources of contamination, using language provided by the primacy agency
or written by the operator.
(c) * * *
(1)
(iii) Contaminant: Any physical, chemical, biological, or
radiological substance or matter in water.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(v) Corrosion control efforts: Treatment (including pH adjustment,
alkalinity adjustment, or corrosion inhibitor addition) or other
efforts contributing to the control of the corrosivity of water, e.g.,
monitoring to assess the corrosivity of water.
(4) A report that contains information regarding a Level 1 or Level
2 Assessment required under Subpart Y--Revised Total Coliform Rule of
this part must include the applicable definitions:
* * * * *
(5) Systems must use the following definitions for the terms listed
below if the terms are used in the report unless the system obtains
written approval from the state to use an alternate definition:
(i) Parts per million (ppm): Parts per million (ppm) is a
measurement of the quantity of a substance in the water. A
concentration of one ppm means that there is one part of that substance
for every one million parts of water.
(ii) Parts per billion (ppb): Parts per billion (ppb) is a
measurement of the quantity of a substance in the water. A
concentration of one ppb means that there is one part of that substance
for every one billion parts of water.
(iii) Parts per trillion (ppt): Parts per trillion (ppt) is a
measurement of the quantity of a substance in the water. A
concentration of one ppt means that there is one part of that substance
for every one trillion parts of water.
(iv) Pesticide: Generally, any substance or mixture of substances
intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.
(v) Herbicide: Any chemical(s) used to control undesirable
vegetation.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Contaminants subject to a MCL, action level, maximum residual
disinfectant level, or treatment technique (regulated contaminants);
and
(ii) Contaminants for which monitoring is required by Sec. 141.40
(unregulated contaminants).
(2) The data relating to these contaminants must be presented in
the reports in a manner that is clear and understandable for consumers.
For example, the data may be displayed in one table or in several
adjacent tables. Any additional monitoring results which a community
water system chooses to include in its report must be displayed
separately.
(3) The data must be derived from data collected to comply with EPA
and State monitoring and analytical requirements during the previous
calendar year, or the most recent calendar year before the previous
calendar year except that:
(i) Where a system is allowed to monitor for regulated contaminants
less often than once a year, the contaminant data section must include
the date and results of the most recent sampling and the report must
include a brief statement indicating that the data presented in the
report are from the
[[Page 20111]]
most recent testing done in accordance with the regulations. No data
older than 5 years need be included.
* * * * *
(4) For each detected regulated contaminant (listed in appendix A
to this subpart), the contaminant data section(s) must contain:
* * * * *
(iii) If there is no MCL for a detected contaminant, the
contaminant data section(s) must indicate that there is a treatment
technique, or specify the action level, applicable to that contaminant,
and the report must include the definitions for treatment technique
and/or action level, as appropriate, specified in paragraph (c)(3) of
this section;
(iv) For contaminants subject to an MCL, except turbidity and E.
coli, the contaminant data section(s) must contain the highest
contaminant level used to determine compliance with an NPDWR and the
range of detected levels, as follows:
* * * * *
(B) When compliance with the MCL is determined by calculating a
running annual average of all samples taken at a monitoring location:
the highest average of any of the monitoring locations and the range of
individual sample results for all monitoring locations expressed in the
same units as the MCL. For the MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 in Sec.
141.64(b)(2), systems must include the highest locational running
annual average for TTHM and HAA5 and the range of individual sample
results for all monitoring locations expressed in the same units as the
MCL. If more than one location exceeds the TTHM or HAA5 MCL, the system
must include the locational running annual averages for all locations
that exceed the MCL.
* * * * *
(vii) [Reserved]
(viii) [Reserved]
(ix) The likely source(s) of detected contaminants to the best of
the operator's knowledge. Specific information regarding contaminants
may be available in sanitary surveys and source water assessments and
should be used when available to the operator. If the operator lacks
specific information on the likely source, the report must include one
or more of the typical sources for that contaminant listed in appendix
A to this subpart that is most applicable to the system; and
(x) For E. coli analytical results under subpart Y-Revised Total
Coliform Rule: The total number of E. coli positive samples.
(5) If a community water system distributes water to its customers
from multiple hydraulically independent distribution systems that are
fed by different raw water sources, the contaminant data section(s)
should differentiate contaminant data for each service area and the
report should identify each separate distribution system. For example,
if displayed in a table, it should contain a separate column for each
service area. Alternatively, systems could produce separate reports
tailored to include data for each service area.
(6) The detected contaminant data section(s) must clearly identify
any data indicating violations of MCLs, MRDLs, or treatment techniques,
and the report must contain a clear and readily understandable
explanation of the violation including: the length of the violation,
the potential adverse health effects, and actions taken by the system
to address the violation. To describe the potential health effects, the
system must use the relevant language of appendix A to this subpart.
(7) For detected unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is
required, the reports must present the average and range at which the
contaminant was detected. The report must include a brief explanation
of the reasons for monitoring for unregulated contaminants such as:
(i) Unregulated contaminant monitoring helps EPA to determine where
certain contaminants occur and whether the Agency should consider
regulating those contaminants in the future.
(ii) A system may write its own educational statement with approval
by the Primacy Agency.
(8) For systems that exceeded the lead action level in Sec.
141.80(c) (or a prescribed level of lead that the Administrator
establishes for public education or notification in a successor
regulation), the detected contaminant data section must clearly
identify the exceedance if any corrective action has been required by
the Administrator or the State during the monitoring period covered by
the report. The report must include a clear and readily understandable
explanation of the exceedance, the steps consumers can take to reduce
their exposure to lead, and a description of any corrective actions the
system has or will take to address the exceedance.
(e) * * *
(1) If the system has performed any monitoring for Cryptosporidium
which indicates that Cryptosporidium may be present in the source water
or the finished water, the report must include:
* * * * *
(f) Compliance with NPDWR. In addition to the requirements of Sec.
141.153(d)(6), the report must note any violation that occurred during
the period covered by the report of a requirement listed below, and
include a clear and readily understandable explanation of the
violation, any potential adverse health effects, and the steps the
system has taken to correct the violation.
* * * * *
(2) Filtration and disinfection prescribed by subpart H-Filtration
and Disinfection of this part. For systems which have failed to install
adequate filtration or disinfection equipment or processes, or have had
a failure of such equipment or processes which constitutes a violation,
the report must include the following language as part of the
explanation of potential adverse health effects: Inadequately treated
water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include
bacteria, viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms such as
nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches.
(3) Lead and copper control requirements prescribed by subpart I-
Control of Lead and Copper of this part. For systems that fail to take
one or more actions prescribed by Sec. Sec. 141.80(d), 141.81, 141.82,
141.83, 141.84, or 141.93, the report must include the applicable
language of appendix A to this subpart for lead, copper, or both.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Both tap water and bottled water come from rivers, lakes,
streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over
the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally
occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material. The water
can also pick up and transport substances resulting from the presence
of animals or from human activity. These substances are also called
contaminants.
(ii) Contaminants are any physical, chemical, biological, or
radiological substance or matter in water. Contaminants that may be
present in source water include:
* * * * *
(B) Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can
occur naturally in the soil or groundwater or may result from urban
stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic
[[Page 20112]]
wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming.
* * * * *
(E) Radioactive contaminants, which can occur naturally or be the
result of oil and gas production and mining activities.
(iii) To protect public health, the Environmental Protection Agency
prescribes regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants
in tap water provided by public water systems. The Food and Drug
Administration regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled
water which must provide the same protection for public health.
(iv) Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be
expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The
presence of contaminants does not necessarily mean that water poses a
health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health
effects can be obtained by calling the Environmental Protection
Agency's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
(2) The report must include the telephone number of the owner,
operator, or designee of the community water system as a source of
additional information concerning the report. If a system uses a
website or social media to share additional information, EPA recommends
including information about how to access such media platforms in the
report.
(3) In communities with a large proportion of consumers with
limited English proficiency, as determined by the Primacy Agency, the
report must contain information in the appropriate language(s)
regarding the importance of the report and contain a telephone number,
address, or contact information where such consumers may obtain a
translated copy of the report, or assistance in the appropriate
language, or the report must be in the appropriate language.
(i) Systems that are a recipient of EPA assistance, as defined in
40 CFR 7.25, must provide meaningful access to information in the
reports to persons served by the water system with limited English
proficiency.
(ii) Systems unable to provide translation support must include
contact information to obtain translation assistance from the State. As
described in Sec. 142.16(f), States are required, as a condition of
primacy to provide water systems with contact information where
consumers can obtain translation assistance from the State.
* * * * *
(6) Systems required to comply with subpart S-Ground Water Rule.
(i) Any ground water system that receives notice from the State of
a significant deficiency or notice from a laboratory of a fecal
indicator-positive ground water source sample that is not invalidated
by the State under Sec. 141.402(d) must inform its customers of any
significant deficiency that is uncorrected at the time of the next
reporting period or of any fecal indicator-positive ground water source
sample in the next report or 6-month update according to Sec. 141.155.
The system must continue to inform the public annually until the State
determines that particular significant deficiency is corrected or the
fecal contamination in the ground water source is addressed under Sec.
141.403(a). Each report must include the following elements:
* * * * *
(7) Systems required to comply with subpart Y-Revised Total
Coliform Rule.
(i) Any system required to comply with the Level 1 assessment
requirement or a Level 2 assessment requirement that is not due to an
E. coli MCL violation must include in the report the text found in
paragraph (h)(7)(i)(A) and paragraphs (h)(7)(i)(B) and (C) of this
section as appropriate, filling in the blanks accordingly and the text
found in paragraphs (h)(7)(i)(D)(1) and (2) of this section if
appropriate. Systems may write their own assessment statement with
equivalent information for paragraphs (h)(7)(i)(B) and (C) of this
section, with approval by the Primacy Agency.
(A) Coliforms are bacteria that occur naturally in the environment
and are used as an indicator that other, potentially harmful,
waterborne organisms may be present or that a potential pathway exists
through which contamination may enter the drinking water distribution
system. We found coliforms indicating the need to look for potential
problems in water treatment or distribution. When this occurs, we are
required to conduct assessment(s) to identify problems and to correct
any problems that were found during these assessments.
(B) Because we found coliforms during sampling, we were required to
conduct [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 1ASSESSMENTS] assessment(s) of the
system, also known as a Level 1 assessment, to identify possible
sources of contamination. [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENTS] Level
1 assessment(s) were completed. In addition, we were required to take
[INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] corrective actions and we
completed [INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] of these actions.
(C) Because we found coliforms during sampling, we were required to
conduct [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS] detailed assessments,
also known as a Level 2 assessment, to identify possible sources of
contamination. [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS] Level 2
assessments were completed. In addition, we were required to take
[INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] corrective actions and we
completed [INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] of these actions.
(D) * * *
(1) During the past year we failed to conduct all the required
assessment(s).
* * * * *
(ii) Any system required to conduct a Level 2 assessment due to an
E. coli MCL violation must include in the report the text found in
paragraphs (h)(7)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section, and health effects
language in appendix A of this section, filling in the blanks
accordingly and the text found in paragraphs (h)(7)(ii)(C)(1) and (2)
of this section, if appropriate. Systems may write their own assessment
statement with equivalent information for paragraphs (h)(7)(ii)(A), (B)
and (C) of this section, with approval by the Primacy Agency.
(A) We found E. coli bacteria, indicating the need to look for
potential problems in water treatment or distribution. When this
occurs, we are required to conduct assessment(s), also known as a Level
1 assessment, to identify problems and to correct any problems that
were found during these assessments.
(B) We were required to complete a detailed assessment of our water
system, also known as a Level 2 assessment, because we found E. coli in
our water system. In addition, we were required to take [INSERT NUMBER
OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] corrective actions and we completed [INSERT
NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] of these actions.
(C) * * *
* * * * *
(2) We failed to correct all defects that were identified during
the assessment that we conducted.
(iii) * * *
(D) We failed to test for E. coli when any repeat sample tested
positive for total coliform.
* * * * *
(8) Systems required to comply with subpart I-Control of Lead and
Copper.
(i) The report must notify consumers that complete lead tap
sampling data are
[[Page 20113]]
available for review and must include information on how to access the
data.
(ii) The report must include a statement that a service line
inventory (including inventories consisting only of a statement that
there are no lead service lines) has been prepared and include
instructions to access the publicly available service line inventory.
If the service line inventory is available online, the report must
include the direct link to the inventory.
(iii) The report must contain a brief and plainly worded
explanation of the corrosion control efforts the system is taking in
accordance with 40 CFR part 141, subpart I Control of Lead and Copper.
0
5. Amend Sec. 141.154 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c)(1) and (2), and (d)(2); and
0
b. Removing paragraphs (e) and (f).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 141.154 Required additional health information.
(a) All reports must prominently display the following language:
Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water
than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons
with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ
transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders,
some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections.
These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health
care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the
risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants
are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791) or on
EPA's website <a href="http://epa.gov/safewater">epa.gov/safewater</a>.
(b) A system that detects arsenic above 0.005 mg/L and up to and
including 0.010 mg/L:
(1) Must include in its report a short informational statement
about arsenic, using language such as: Arsenic is known to cause cancer
in humans. Arsenic also may cause other health effects such as skin
damage and circulatory problems. [NAME OF UTILITY] meets the EPA
arsenic drinking water standard, also known as a Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL). However, you should know that EPA's MCL for arsenic
balances the scientific community's understanding of arsenic-related
health effects and the cost of removing arsenic from drinking water.
The highest concentration of arsenic found in [YEAR] was [INSERT MAX
ARSENIC LEVEL per Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(iv)] ppb, which is less than the
EPA's MCL of 10 ppb.
(2) May write its own educational statement, with approval by the
Primacy Agency.
(c) * * *
(1) Must include a short informational statement about the impacts
of nitrate on children using language such as: Even though [NAME OF
UTILITY] meets the EPA nitrate drinking water standard, also known as a
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), if you are caring for an infant and
using tap water to prepare formula, you may want to use alternate
sources of water or ask for advice from your health care provider.
Nitrate levels above 10 ppm pose a particularly high health concern for
infants under 6 months of age and can interfere with the capacity of
the infant's blood to carry oxygen, resulting in a serious illness.
Symptoms of serious illness include shortness of breath and blueness of
the skin, known as ``blue baby syndrome.'' Nitrate levels in drinking
water can increase for short periods of time due to high levels of
rainfall or agricultural activity, therefore we test for nitrate
[INSERT APPLICABLE SAMPLING FREQUENCY]. The highest level for nitrate
found during [YEAR] was [INSERT MAX NITRATE LEVEL per Sec.
141.153(d)(4)(iv)] ppm, which is less than the EPA's MCL of 10 ppm.
(2) May write its own educational statement, with approval by the
Primacy Agency.
(d)* * *
(2) A system may write its own educational statement, with approval
by the State.
0
6. Amend Sec. 141.155 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e), (g)
introductory text, (g)(1)(i), (g)(2); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 141.155 Report delivery, reporting and recordkeeping.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each
community water system must directly deliver a copy of the report to
each customer.
(1) Systems must use at a minimum, one of the following forms of
delivery:
(i) Mail a paper copy of the report;
(ii) Mail a notification that the report is available on a website
via a direct link; or
(iii) Email a direct link or electronic version of the report.
(2) Systems using delivery methods in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and
(iii) of this section must provide a paper copy of the report to any
customer upon request. The notification method must prominently display
directions for requesting such copy.
(3) For systems that choose to electronically deliver the reports
by posting the report to a website and providing a notification either
by mail or email, the report must be publicly available on the website
at time notification is made. Notifications must prominently display
the link and include an explanation of the nature of the link.
(i) Systems may use a web page to convey the information required
in Sec. Sec. 141.153, 141.154, and 141.156.
(4) Systems that use a publicly available website to provide
reports must maintain public access to the report for no less than 3
years.
(b) The system must make a good faith effort to reach consumers who
do not get water bills, using means recommended by the primacy agency.
EPA expects that an adequate good faith effort will be tailored to the
consumers who are served by the system but are not bill-paying
customers, such as renters or workers. A good faith effort to reach
consumers includes a mix of methods to reach the broadest possible
range of persons served by the water system such as, but not limited
to: Posting the reports on the internet; mailing reports or postcards
with links to the reports to all service addresses and/or postal
customers; using an opt in notification system to send emails and/or
texts with links to the reports to interested consumers; advertising
the availability of the report in the news media and on social media;
publication in a local newspaper; posting a copy of the report or
notice of availability with links (or equivalent, such as QR codes) in
public places such as cafeterias or lunch rooms of public buildings;
delivery of multiple copies for distribution by single-biller customers
such as apartment buildings or large private employers; delivery to
community organizations; and holding a public meeting to educate
consumers on the reports.
(c) No later than the date the system is required to distribute the
report to its customers, each community water system must provide a
copy of the report to the primacy agency, followed within 3 months by a
certification that the report(s) has/have been distributed to
customers, and that the information is correct and consistent with the
compliance monitoring data previously submitted to the primacy agency.
* * * * *
(e) Each community water system must make its reports available to
the public upon request. Systems must make a reasonable effort to
provide the reports in an accessible format to
[[Page 20114]]
anyone who requests an accommodation.
* * * * *
(g) The Governor of a State or their designee, or the Tribal Leader
where the tribe has met the eligibility requirements contained in Sec.
142.72 for the purposes of waiving the mailing requirement, can waive
the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section for community water
systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons. In consultation with the
tribal government, the Regional Administrator may waive the requirement
of Sec. 141.155(a) in areas in Indian country where no tribe has been
deemed eligible.
(1) * * *
(i) Publish the reports in one or more local newspapers or on one
or more local online news sites serving the area in which the system is
located;
* * * * *
(2) Systems serving 500 or fewer persons may forego the
requirements of paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section if they
provide notice that the report is available upon request at least once
per year to their customers by mail, door-to-door delivery or by
posting in one or more locations where persons served by the system can
reasonably be expected to see it.
* * * * *
(i) Systems serving 100,000 or more persons, must develop a plan
for providing meaningful access to reports for limited English-
proficient consumers. The system must evaluate the languages spoken by
limited English-proficient persons served by the water system, and the
system's anticipated approach to address translation needs. The first
plan must be provided to the state with the first report in 2025. Plans
must be evaluated annually and updated as necessary and reported with
the certification required in Sec. 141.155(c).
(j) Delivery timing and biannual delivery.
(1) Each community water system must distribute reports by July 1
each year. Each report distributed by July 1 must use data collected
during, or prior to, the previous calendar year using methods described
in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Each community water system serving 10,000 or more persons must
distribute the report biannually, or twice per calendar year, by
December 31 using methods described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) Systems required to comply with paragraph (j)(2) of this
section, with a violation or action level exceedance that occurred
between January 1st and June 30th of the current year, or have received
monitoring results from required monitoring under Sec. 141.40
Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule, must include a 6-month update
with the second report with the following:
(i) A short description of the nature of the 6-month update and the
biannual delivery.
(ii) If a system receives an MCL, MRDL, or treatment technique
violation, the 6-month update must include the applicable contaminant
section information in Sec. 141.153(d)(4), and a readily
understandable explanation of the violation including: the length of
the violation, the potential adverse health effects, actions taken by
the system to address the violation, and timeframe the system expects
to complete those actions. To describe the potential health effects,
the system must use the relevant language of appendix A to this
subpart.
(iii) If a system receives any other violation, the 6-month update
must include the information in Sec. 141.153(f).
(iv) If a system exceeded the lead action level following
monitoring conducted between January 1st and June 30th of the current
year, the system must include information identified in Sec.
141.153(d)(4)(vi) and 141.153(d)(8).
(v) For systems monitoring under Sec. 141.40 that become aware of
results for samples collected during the reporting year but were not
included in the reports distributed by July 1, the system must include
information as required by Sec. 141.153(d)(7).
0
7. Adding Sec. 141.156 to read as follows:
Sec. 141.156 Summary of report contents
(a) Each report must include a summary displayed prominently at the
beginning of the report.
(b) Systems must include, at a minimum, the following information
in the summary:
(1) Summary of violations and compliance information included in
the report required by Sec. Sec. 141.153(d)(6), 141.153(d)(8),
141.153(f),141.153(h)(6), and 141.153(h)(7).
(2) Contact information for owner, operator, or designee of the
community water system as a source of additional information concerning
the report, per Sec. 141.153(h)(2).
(c) If applicable, systems must include the following in the
summary:
(1) For systems using delivery methods in Sec. 141.155(a)(1)(ii)
or (iii), the summary must include directions for consumers to request
a paper copy of the report, as described in Sec. 141.155(a)(2).
(2) Translation contact information to receive assistance with
translating information in the report, per Sec. 141.153(h)(3).
(3) For systems using the report to also meet the public
notification requirements of subpart Q--Public Notification of Drinking
Water Violations, the summary must specify that it is also serving to
provide public notification of one or more violations or situations,
provide a brief statement about the nature of the notice(s), and a
brief description of how to locate the notice(s) in the report.
(d) The summary should be written in plain language and may use
infographics.
(e) For those systems required to include a 6-month update with the
second report under Sec. 141.155(j)(2), the summary should include a
brief description of the nature of the report and update, noting the
availability of new information for the current year (between January
and June).
(f) The report summary must include the following standard language
to encourage the distribution of the report to all persons served:
Please share this information with anyone who drinks this water (or
their guardians), especially those who may not have received this
report directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes,
schools, and businesses). You can do this by posting this report in a
public place or distributing copies by hand, mail, email, or another
method.
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
0
8. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
0
9. Amend Sec. 142.14 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 142.14 Records kept by States.
* * * * *
(h) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must
maintain the following records under subpart O of this part:
(1) A copy of the consumer confidence reports for a period of one
year and the certifications obtained pursuant to 40 CFR 141.155(c) for
a period of 5 years.
(2) A copy of the plans submitted pursuant to 40 CFR
141.153(h)(3)(i) for a period of 5 years.
0
10. Amend Sec. 142.15 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
[[Page 20115]]
0
b. Removing in paragraph (b)(2), the period at the end of the paragraph
and adding ``; and'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(3).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 142.15 Reports by States.
* * * * *
(b) Each State which has primary enforcement responsibility must
submit annual reports to the Administrator on a schedule and in a
format prescribed by the Administrator, consisting of the following
information:
* * * * *
(3) Compliance monitoring data and related data necessary for
determining compliance for all existing National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs) in 40 CFR part 141. Related compliance data
include specified records kept by the State in Sec. 142.14.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 142.16 by revising paragraphs (f)(1), (3), and (4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must
adopt the revised requirements of 40 CFR part 141, subpart O no later
than [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER DATE OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
States must submit revised programs to EPA for approval using the
procedures in Sec. 142.12(b) through (d).
* * * * *
(3) Each State must, as a condition of primacy, provide water
systems with translation assistance to consumers upon request and
provide contact information where consumers can obtain translation
assistance for inclusion in the system's report.
(4) Each application for approval of a revised program must
include:
(i) A description of how the State will meet the requirements in
Sec. 141.153(h)(6) to provide translation assistance to consumers and
contact information for translation assistance to water systems; and
(ii) A description of procedures for waiving the mailing
requirement for small systems consistent with 40 CFR 141.155(g).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-06674 Filed 4-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 5, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.