Rule2024-10919
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence Reports
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
May 24, 2024
Effective
June 24, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule in accordance with America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 (United States, 2018) and is requiring States, territories, and Tribes with primary enforcement responsibility to report compliance monitoring data (CMD) to the EPA. The revisions will 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 final rule requirements for States to submit to the EPA CMD for all National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) will improve the EPA's ability to fulfill oversight responsibilities under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 102 (Friday, May 24, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45980-46014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-10919]
[[Page 45979]]
Vol. 89
Friday,
No. 102
May 24, 2024
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence
Reports; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 45980]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260; FRL 8464-01-OW]
RIN 2040-AG14
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence
Reports
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule in accordance with America's
Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 (United States, 2018) and is
requiring States, territories, and Tribes with primary enforcement
responsibility to report compliance monitoring data (CMD) to the EPA.
The revisions will 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 final rule requirements for States to submit to the EPA CMD for all
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) will improve the
EPA's ability to fulfill oversight responsibilities under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 24, 2024. The compliance
date for the revisions to 40 CFR part 141, subpart O is set forth in
Sec. 141.152. The compliance date for States (as defined in Sec.
142.2) to report CMD is set forth in Sec. 142.15(b)(3).
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</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#c3a1b1a2a7a1b6b1baedb0a2b1a2ab83a6b3a2eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="55372734313720272c7b263427343d153025347b323a23">[email protected]</span></a>.
For general information contact: The EPA at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afe0e8f8ebf8ececfdddcad9c6dcc6c0c1dcefcadfce81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d020a1a091a0e0e1f3f283b243e2422233e0d283d2c632a223b">[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 the EPA. We use acronyms in this preamble. For
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following acronyms here:
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
DW-SFTIES Drinking Water State-Federal-Tribal Information Exchange
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
LSL Lead Service Line
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels
NDWAC National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OCCT Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment
PFAS Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PN Public Notification
ppb Parts per billion
ppm Parts per million
ppt Parts per trillion
PWS Public Water System
PWSS Public Water System Supervision
QR Quick Response
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
TT Treatment Technique
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. What are the EPA's final revisions?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
D. What action is the Agency taking?
E. Why is the Agency taking this action?
II. Background
A. Overview of Consumer Confidence Report Rule
B. Overview of Compliance Monitoring Data Requirements
C. Applicability
D. Consultations
III. Content of Consumer Confidence Reports
A. Report Summaries
B. Contaminant Data Section
C. False and Misleading Statements
D. Risk Communication
E. Corrosion Control Efforts, Action Level Exceedances
Information in CCRs, and Other Lead Related Provisions
IV. Translation Assistance
A. Translation Support Requirements for CWSs and States
B. Recipient and Subrecipient Meaningful Access
C. Language Access Plans
V. Consumer Confidence Report Delivery
A. Biannual Delivery
B. Electronic Delivery
C. Posting Online
D. Delivery Certification
E. Good Faith Delivery
VI. Compliance Monitoring Data
A. CMD Reporting Requirement
B. Scope and Administrative Burden of CMD Reporting
VII. Other Revisions
A. Housekeeping
VIII. Rule Implementation and Enforcement
A. Compliance Date
B. Special Primacy
IX. Economic Analysis
A. Estimates of the Total Annualized Cost of the Final Rule
Revisions
B. Program and Administrative Costs for CCR and CMD
C. Revisions to Consumer Confidence Report Requirements Costs
D. Compliance Monitoring Data (CMD) Requirement Costs
E. Qualitative Benefits
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility 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 and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
[[Page 45981]]
K. Congressional Review Act
XI. Severability
XII. References
I. General Information
A. What are the EPA's final revisions?
The EPA is promulgating revisions to the Consumer Confidence Report
Rule (CCR) that strengthen public health protection by improving access
to and clarity of drinking water data so that customers of community
water systems (CWS) can have a more complete picture of water quality
and water system compliance. The EPA is requiring primacy agencies to
report compliance monitoring data (CMD) to the EPA to support the
agency's oversight responsibilities by providing the EPA a more
complete and accurate understanding of water system compliance with
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
B. Does this action apply to me?
Entities that could potentially be affected include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example of potentially affected
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWSs................................. CWSs (a public water system [PWS]
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) (Sec.
141.2).
State, territory, and Tribal agencies Primacy agencies responsible for
drinking water regulatory
development and enforcement.
(Sec. 142.2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the 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 Sec. 141.151 of the rule. For
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the technical information contact listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
The statutory authority for this rule is the SDWA, including
sections 1413, 1414, 1445, and 1450. The 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 (63 FR 44512 (August 19, 1998). 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 a CWS to their consumers. On October 23, 2018, (Pub.
L. 115-270, 2018) AWIA was enacted to improve drinking water and water
quality, deepen infrastructure investments, enhance public health and
quality of life, increase jobs, and bolster the economy.
Section 2008 of AWIA amended SDWA section 1414(c)(4) on Consumer
Confidence Reports by adding a new paragraph 1414(c)(4)(F). This new
paragraph requires the EPA to revise the 1998 CCR 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 EPA 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 CCR Rule, the AWIA amendments
direct that the revised regulations must be developed in consultation
with PWSs, environmental groups, public interest groups, risk
communication experts, the States, and other interested parties.
Section 1414(c)(4)(F), as amended, also established a deadline of
October 23, 2020, for the EPA to revise the CCR Rule. In response to a
complaint filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council on January 19,
2021, (NRDC v. EPA-SDWA CCR No 21-cv-461. 2021.) and after public
notice (USEPA, 2021d) and the opportunity to comment, the EPA entered a
consent decree that includes a deadline for the agency to sign for
publication in the Federal Register revisions to the CCR regulations no
later than May 14, 2024 (modified from March 15, 2024), to comply with
AWIA amendments to SDWA section 1414(c)(4). Natural Resources Defense
Council v. Michael S. Regan, Administrator of the U.S. EPA, Case No. 21
Civ. 461 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.). See also Docket no. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0753.
This action fulfills the rulemaking requirements of SDWA section
1414(c)(4)(F).
In addition, in recent years, the EPA evaluated ways to improve the
accuracy and availability of compliance monitoring data by practicable,
cost-effective methods and means. AWIA, section 2011 amended SDWA
section 1414 to add a new section, 1414(j)--Improved Accuracy and
Availability of Compliance Monitoring Data. SDWA Section 1414(j)
required the EPA to provide Congress a strategic plan for improving the
accuracy and availability of monitoring data collected to demonstrate
compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs)
and submitted by public water systems to States or by States to the
Administrator. Congress mandated the EPA to, among other things,
evaluate challenges with ensuring the accuracy and integrity of
submitted data, and provide findings and recommendations on
practicable, cost-effective methods and means that can be employed to
improve the accuracy and availability of submitted data. To inform its
efforts to meet these statutory requirements, the EPA consulted States,
PWSs, and other interested stakeholders, which consisted of discussions
with staff from State drinking water programs, PWSs, and State
laboratories, as well as staff from the EPA regions. The EPA's Drinking
Water Compliance Monitoring Data (CMD) Strategic Plan identified a need
for the EPA to obtain and evaluate monitoring data regularly collected
by States as required under the NPDWRs (USEPA, 2022a). The EPA has
considered the accuracy and completeness of compliance information
available to the agency and determined that annual reporting of CMD
will provide the agency a more complete and accurate understanding
water system compliance and therefore, is needed to support the
agency's oversight responsibilities under SDWA. As described in the CMD
Strategic Plan, an internal analysis of Safe Drinking
[[Page 45982]]
Water Information System (SDWIS) data quality conducted in 2009 found
inconsistencies in the health-based and monitoring violation records in
Safe Drinking Water Information System Federal Data Warehouse (SDWIS
FED) compared to State records. The evaluation found that health-based
violations were 61 percent accurate, and the monitoring violations were
as low as 21 percent accurate, meaning that the recorded health-based
violations for a system or the lack of recorded violation could be
incorrect nearly one third of the time. The reasons for low data
quality were both incorrect compliance determinations and correct
information not transmitted properly to the EPA's database (USEPA,
2022a). In 2011 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded
that poor data quality and reliability limit the EPA's ability to
target enforcement priorities and communicate PWS performance (USGAO,
2011) and in 2006, GAO concluded that the EPA should ensure that data
on water systems' test results, corrective action milestones, and
violations are current, accurate, and complete (USGAO, 2006). In light
of the findings the EPA made in the CMD Strategic Plan as well as the
GAO's 2006 and 2011 recommendations, the EPA determined that annual
reporting of CMD is needed to support the agency's oversight
responsibilities by providing the EPA a more complete and accurate
understanding water system compliance.
Section 1445(a) of the SDWA authorizes the EPA to require any
person (including water systems and States) subject to SDWA to make
such reports as the 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 the EPA may
reasonably require by regulation. The annual reporting of CMD as
required by this final rule will strengthen the agency's ability to
conduct oversight of PWS compliance with NPDWRs and primacy States'
implementation of the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program.
Evaluating PWS compliance with the NPDWRs is based on the review and
evaluation of sample results and operational data collected by PWSs and
submitted to primacy States. Currently, the EPA only receives State
data on water system violations, water system inventory, and other
information, such as enforcement actions, which does not allow the EPA
to fully assess trends in water system compliance with NPDWRs. As a
result, in this rule, the EPA is requiring annual reporting of CMD to
assist the agency in Federal oversight of primacy agency and PWS
compliance with SDWA requirements.
Requiring States to report CMD annually will assist the EPA in
routinely evaluating the quality of selected drinking water data on
health-based and monitoring violations. This in turn will improve the
EPA's ability to oversee the States' implementation of the SDWA and to
provide more complete and accurate information on compliance to
Congress and the public, consistent with GAO's recommendations (USGAO,
2011). 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> and in the docket for this rule (EPA-
HQ-OW-2022-0260-0027). Finally, annual reporting of CMD is consistent
with the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (also
called the Evidence Act), which statutorily mandates that the EPA build
and use evidence to improve policy, program, operational, budget, and
management decision-making (United States, 2019). As intended under the
Evidence Act, States' annual reporting of CMD to the EPA will provide a
more complete and accurate understanding of trends in contaminant
occurrence and water system compliance, which will improve the
decisions the EPA makes regarding oversight, enforcement, regulatory
revisions, and training and technical assistance actions.
D. What action is the Agency taking?
Consistent with the statutory provisions and purposes described in
this preamble, the EPA is finalizing a rule to (1) revise the CCR
regulations and (2) establish requirements for States, territories, and
Tribes with primacy to report CMD annually to the EPA.
E. Why is the Agency taking this action?
The EPA is committed to improving the accuracy and availability of
drinking water data that the agency and the public receive to make
informed decisions and protect public health. In passing AWIA's
amendments to the CCR provisions of SDWA, Congress reaffirmed that
people living in the United States 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 CCRs to increase the readability, clarity,
and understandability of the information, as well as the accuracy of
the information presented and the risk communication. These revisions
address those needs and require CCRs to include certain information
about lead in drinking water. This final rule also requires 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 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, commonly referred to as the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (United States, 2021) as well as the
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 final 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 CWSs can
make informed decisions about their health and the health of their
families.
The current reporting requirements for primacy States under Sec.
142.15(a) provide the EPA with information on system inventory, the
presence of violations, and other information, such as State
enforcement actions. Although the 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 Sec. 142.17, primacy States are not
required to regularly report the CMD that they receive from PWSs and
retain as a condition of primacy. As a result, the EPA does not have
the data necessary to better understand nationwide trends, to conduct
the agency's required oversight responsibilities, and to provide
effective compliance assistance. Requiring States to report CMD will
allow the EPA to comprehensively evaluate and quantify compliance with
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), maximum residual disinfectant levels
(MRDLs), and other requirements of drinking water regulations, to
better ascertain the effectiveness of treatment technologies and other
water system operational issues, and to identify and respond to
regulatory implementation challenges more readily. States' reporting of
CMD also will provide ancillary benefits, including supporting periodic
reviews of existing regulations, enabling a more
[[Page 45983]]
comprehensive approach to identifying infrastructure needs, and
informing the EPA and State collaborative efforts to deliver technical
and funding assistance to water systems that more effectively addresses
underlying technical, managerial, and financial capacity-building
needs. In addition, requiring all primacy States to report CMD will
allow the EPA to identify geographic and demographic trends in
contaminant occurrence and water system compliance.
Therefore, pursuant to section 1445(a)(1)(A) and section 1413(a)(3)
of the SDWA, the EPA is requiring all primacy States, territories, and
Tribes to submit CMD for all NPDWRs to the EPA annually. This revision
to Sec. 142.15(b) does not change existing requirements for PWSs to
report CMD to primacy agencies or for primacy agencies to retain
records of CMD.
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 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 that may
affect their health, and may allow consumers to make more informed
decisions about their drinking water. CCRs also provide 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 CWSs to provide annual CCRs to their customers to better
protect health of consumers by providing a detailed report on the state
of their drinking water supply. The EPA promulgated the Consumer
Confidence Report Rule in August 1998 and the rule established content
and delivery requirements for CWSs (USEPA, 1998b). 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 NPDWRs; variances and
exemptions; and additional required information. Systems are required
to deliver the reports annually by July 1 through mail or other direct
delivery methods. As described in section 1414(c)(4)(C) of SDWA and the
EPA's implementing regulations at Sec. 141.155(g), CWSs serving fewer
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 13563 (2011). The Executive order 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.'' The EPA identified
the CCR 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 Executive Order 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, the EPA
released a 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 the EPA interpreted as consistent
with the existing CCR 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, the EPA authorizes States, territories and Tribes for
primary enforcement responsibility or ``primacy'' for PWSs. PWSs are
subject to NPDWRs that include monitoring and reporting requirements to
ensure compliance with drinking water standards. Under Sec. 142.14,
States, territories, and Tribes with primacy are required to maintain
records submitted to the primacy agency under the reporting
requirements established for the NPDWRs, including records of
compliance monitoring results and related monitoring information
necessary to determine whether a PWS complies with NPDWRs.
The EPA currently requires primacy agencies to submit quarterly and
annual reports, in a format prescribed to the Administrator (Sec.
142.15(a)). These reports are limited in scope because they focus only
on system inventory, violations, and other information, such as
enforcement actions. Under Sec. 142.17, the EPA is must review at
least annually the compliance of each primacy State, territory, or
Tribe with the regulatory requirements for primacy in the 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 to report sample
results and related monitoring data to primacy agencies.
This final rule revises Sec. 142.15(b) to require all States,
territories and Tribes with primacy to report the data necessary for
determining compliance with NPDWRs, which includes both sample results
and the related monitoring data that show whether the requirements for
number of samples, sample schedule, sample location, and analytical
methods have been satisfied. See section VI.B.3 of this preamble for
the discussion on the revised scope of reported CMD.
Following promulgation, the EPA will collaborate with primacy
agencies that use SDWIS State, and those that use alternative data
management systems, to assure a low administrative burden of the CMD
reporting requirement. As the EPA is currently in the process of
developing the Drinking Water State-Federal-Tribal Information Exchange
System (DW-SFTIES) as the long-term replacement for SDWIS State, the
EPA plans to develop an automated data extraction feature into DW-
SFTIES. Primacy agencies that choose to adopt DW-SFTIES for data
management purposes will be able to use this planned functionality to
meet the annual CMD reporting requirement. Prior to adoption of DW-
SFTIES, the EPA will facilitate primacy agency reporting to minimize
reporting burden. A primacy agency could submit CMD using one of two
formats:
(1) As a data extract using the EPA's SDWIS State Data
Extraction Tool; or
(2) As an extracted copy of its database and database
documentation.
[[Page 45984]]
The EPA currently provides a SDWIS Data Extraction Tool to 42
primacy agencies that use SDWIS State, which supports their sharing of
CMD with the EPA for the Six-Year Review of Drinking Water Standards.
The Data Extraction Tool extracts CMD from a SDWIS State database and
packages it in a file that can easily be submitted to the EPA. Prior to
the implementation date for the annual CMD reporting requirement and
based on planned EPA-state workgroup input and testing, the EPA will
enhance the Data Extraction Tool to enable these primacy agencies to
automatically extract and annually submit the required CMD to the EPA.
Alternatively, primacy agencies can submit to the EPA a database
extract and share data documentation that describes the data structure
and data element definitions. The EPA will work with the eight States,
five territories, and one Tribe with PWSS program primacy that do not
currently use SDWIS State to submit a database extract to meet the
annual CMD reporting requirement.
C. Applicability
The EPA is finalizing revisions to the CCR requirements and
establishing a new requirement for annual CMD reporting by States as
described in this preamble. The revisions to the CCR requirements in 40
CFR part 141 apply to existing and new CWSs. A CWS is a PWS that serves
at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or
regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents (Sec. 141.2). The
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 nearly 155,000
PWSs 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 rest 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 six months of the
year (for example, schools). Because the CCR rule provisions in 40 CFR
part 141, subpart O apply only to CWSs, as provided by Congress in the
1996 Amendments to SDWA, transient and non-transient non-community
systems are not affected by revisions to the CCR made in this final
rule.
The EPA notes that many water wholesalers are also considered CWSs.
If such a system does not sell water to any customer (defined as
billing units or service connections to which water is delivered by a
CWS (Sec. 141.151(c))), the system will not have to prepare and submit
a CCR. However, these systems must 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 (Sec.
141.152(d)).
The CCR revisions in this rule also include special primacy and
recordkeeping requirements in Sec. Sec. 142.14 and 142.16 that are
applicable to States, Tribes, and territories with primacy. 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.
The new requirement for reporting CMD to the EPA in Sec. 142.15
applies to States, territories, and Tribes with primacy.
D. 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. In addition to seeking and considering public comment on
the proposed rulemaking, the EPA consulted with various stakeholders to
solicit input on the rulemaking prior to publication of the proposal.
The 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 requirements; advancing environmental
justice (EJ) 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. The NDWAC provided the EPA with its
recommendations on December 14, 2021 (NDWAC, 2021). On April 26, 2022,
the EPA hosted a virtual public listening session, in which the EPA
provided a brief introduction and overview of the project and purpose
and allowed registered attendees to provide input on specific topics
and heard verbal comments from interested attendees.
The EPA sought input from Tribal governments as part of Tribal
consultation, along with members of State, local government, and
utility associations as part of a federalism consultation. The 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). The EPA 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 the 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. 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. The 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 the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/tribal/consultation-tribes">https://www.epa.gov/tribal/consultation-tribes</a>).
On August 25, 2022, the EPA initiated a 60-day federalism
consultation by hosting a meeting with members of state and local
government associations and invited water utility associations. The EPA
presented background information on the proposed rulemaking and sought
feedback on key considerations for the rulemaking. The 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).
The EPA also used input received through the Lead and Copper Rule
Revisions (LCRR) review process that were related to CCRs and
communicating to consumers to inform the development of the revised CCR
rule. The Agency issued the final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
(Docket ID
[[Page 45985]]
EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300) on 86 FR 4198, 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 Executive Order 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 goals.''
Executive Order 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
Executive Order 13990, the EPA reviewed the LCRR to engage meaningfully
with the public regarding this important public health regulation
before it took effect. As part of the EPA's commitment to EJ, the 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 in 2021 (USEPA, 2021b).
Feedback from the LCRR virtual engagement discussions related to CCRs
and drinking water notifications were reviewed, summarized, and
considered to inform this rulemaking (USEPA, 2021c).
In developing revisions to the CCR Rule, the EPA conducted separate
interviews with nine states, nine CWSs of varying sizes representing
different regions, as well as a county health official (risk
communication expert), a public interest group, and an EJ organization.
The purpose of the interviews with States and water systems was to
identify level of effort, costs, and burden associated with CCR
implementation, data management and reporting. 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.
Additional details on the consultations are provided in the
proposed rulemaking (USEPA, 2023), and supporting documents are
included in the rule docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260).
III. Content of Consumer Confidence Reports
CCRs contain a great deal of highly technical information. In
amending SDWA section 1414(c)(4), Congress directed the 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. The EPA
interprets this statutory directive as setting a goal to make CCRs
easier for every CWS consumer to understand so that they may make
informed decisions about their health and any risks associated with
their drinking water.
A. Report Summaries
1. Proposal
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 the 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).
The EPA proposed to amend Sec. 141.156 to require water systems to
include a summary at the beginning of each CCR. The proposed rule
identified the following pieces of information for inclusion in the
report summary: summary of violations and ALEs, information on how
consumers can contact the system to receive additional 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 also incorporated the flexibility to allow
systems to present the information as an infographic to improve clarity
and understandability. A summary included at the beginning of the
reports allows consumers to quickly view key information and may lead
to more people engaging with the reports. The EPA also requested
comments on information that should be included in a report summary.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
The EPA received many comments on the proposed inclusion of
summaries in CCRs. A few commenters supported the requirement for CCRs
to include a summary, with one commenter noting the summary offers an
opportunity for systems to communicate key messages, and another noting
summaries could help encourage consumers to read the report. Several
commenters supported the proposed content requirements for the summary:
contact information, translation assistance information, identifying
public notices, and violations/ALEs.
Several commenters disagreed with the addition of a summary citing
concerns that it would likely be redundant with required content of the
reports, as well as adding length to reports. A few commenters
suggested the inclusion of a summary should be limited in some way, for
example, applying the requirement for reports exceeding 10 pages in
length, or to very large systems serving over 100,000 people. A few
commenters expressed concern related to consumer perception of the
summary, including that the summaries would confuse consumers by
describing technical concepts, discourage consumers from reading the
remainder of the report, and erode consumer confidence by highlighting
violations. A couple of commenters noted that by adding the required
summaries, it would increase burden for systems, and to States that
support CWSs by developing the CCRs for them.
The EPA agrees that including a summary in CCRs will benefit
customers by clearly highlighting key information near the beginning of
the report. In response to concerns from commenters that the summaries
will confuse or alarm consumers, the EPA has modified Sec. 141.156(a)
to add that summaries must include a ``brief description of the nature
of the report'' as a brief main message to consumers, which will help
explain the purpose of the report. The EPA anticipates that the main
message would most likely consist of one to three sentences. The
inclusion of a ``main message'' is consistent with
[[Page 45986]]
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Clear Communication
Index (CDC, 2019) recommendation of including the most important
information at the beginning, so that it is easy to find, what the
audience should remember, and may also add a call to action (what
action the source, in this case CWS, want people to do after receiving
and understanding the main message). For example, systems could
identify the document as the water quality summary report. Although the
EPA agrees that the addition of the summary may add length to the
reports, the agency has limited the minimum required information to
contact information, summary of violations, instructions for how to
receive a paper copy or translation assistance (as applicable) and
identifying if public notices are included in the report. Because all
CCRs will benefit from a summary section to ensure the key information
is consistently found near the beginning of the report, the EPA
disagrees with commenters that the requirement to include summaries
should be limited to the reports that exceed a specified page length or
by system size. The EPA agrees that developing a summary will require
additional efforts for CWSs and States to adapt existing processes.
However, based on the targeted interviews, the EPA found that for most
States or systems that developed a template to include most of the
required elements under the existing CCR rule, the first version
required the highest level of effort, but then in subsequent years, the
additional effort to update or revise the template language was minimal
(USEPA, 2022e and USEPA 2022f). Following the promulgation of final
revised Consumer Confidence Rule, the EPA intends to work with
stakeholders in developing implementation resources to support States
and systems in meeting the new requirements.
The EPA disagrees with commenters that believe the summaries will
be redundant with report contents. Although the summary requires
information described elsewhere in the existing regulations, the CCR
will not require water system to provide the same information, the same
way, twice. In addition, while the existing CCR rule in Sec.
141.153(h)(2) requires systems to provide a telephone number to contact
the CWS for additional information, that requirement would be met with
the summary section at the beginning of the report. The EPA disagrees
with requiring the suggested additional information in the summaries,
because if the summary is too long then that defeats the purpose;
specifically, additional information could overwhelm the consumers with
information that would be better suited for the body of the report.
CWSs could choose to include additional information, such as an index
to help consumers navigate the report to important elements like the
contaminant data section. Alternatively, systems could use formatting
within the body of the report to highlight specific information, like
text boxes.
3. Final Revisions
For the final rule, the EPA modified Sec. 141.156(a) as proposed
to require a brief description of the nature of the report. The final
revised CCR rule sets minimum content requirements for the report
summaries in Sec. 141.156: contact information, brief overview of
compliance information in the report, how to request a paper copy of
the report for systems using electronic delivery, translation contact
information, identification of public notices included in the report,
and standard language to encourage sharing the report. The final rule
also retains flexibility for systems on how to present the information,
include additional features or use infographics. In addition, the EPA
made conforming edits in Sec. 141.156 (c)(2) of the summary
requirements to reflect changes to Sec. 141.153(h)(3) that the agency
made in response to comments received on translation access in CCRs.
B. Contaminant Data Section
1. Proposal
The original Consumer Confidence Report Rule required that data for
detected contaminants subject to mandatory monitoring be displayed in
one or more tables. Since then, advances in technology and graphics
have allowed data to be presented in clearer and more understandable
ways using readily available software. The EPA proposed revising Sec.
141.153(d) to allow water systems flexibility in formatting contaminant
data to present the information in a more readable and understandable
format by replacing ``contaminant data table(s)'' with ``contaminant
data section.'' Despite allowing additional flexibility on how the
information is presented, the EPA did not propose to change the type of
information on detected contaminants that systems need to report in
Sec. 141.153(d)(4), such as reporting the MCL, Maximum Contaminant
Level Goal (MCLG), the highest contaminant level used to determine
compliance with a NPDWR, and the range of detected levels for each
detected contaminant.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
The EPA received many comments supporting the agency's proposal to
allow water systems flexibility in formatting contaminant data to
present the information in a more readable and understandable format.
Commenters stated that they appreciate the flexibility proposed in the
revisions that would allow water systems to provide contaminant data
sections instead of contaminant data tables and support the use of
infographics and other means to present water quality data. A couple of
commenters felt that the current CCR is bogged down by tables of non-
detects and information that does not concisely present immediate
threats to consumers and that large blocks of text and long sentences
can act as barriers to readability and could result in a decrease in
readership and understanding. By revising the contaminant data
formatting requirements commenters said that it will allow water
systems to use engaging and meaningful methods to increase readership
and understandability of the report contents and let water systems
tailor the presentation of complex information to their unique
audiences.
While many commenters agreed with the EPA's proposal to allow
flexibility in how to present contaminant data, a couple of commenters
disagreed with this approach. One commenter stated that allowing water
systems to have the flexibility in the contaminant data section would
allow water systems to continue providing incomplete and inaccurate
information about health effects, contaminant sources, and other
information contained in the report. Another commenter said that
presenting the required analytical data, using inherent scientific
terms and units that accompany them, can be confusing to the public and
the continued use of data tables enables the water system to configure
the data in a concise manner.
The EPA agrees that giving systems flexibility in how they can
present the required analytical data will allow water systems the
opportunity to present the information in a more readable and
understandable format, which will help increase the readability,
clarity, and understandability of CCRs as required by AWIA. During the
EPA's consultations prior to issuing the proposed rule, stakeholders
identified the use of infographics to display information as one way to
help improve understandability of technical concepts
[[Page 45987]]
in the reports. The EPA disagrees that allowing this type of
flexibility would permit water systems to provide incomplete or
inaccurate information to consumers. The requirements on the type of
information on detected contaminants that systems need to report in
Sec. 141.153(d) would ensure that the report includes complete
information, and the existing CCR requirement in Sec. 141.151(a) that
``reports must contain information on the quality of the water . . . in
an accurate and understandable manner,'' would prevent the inclusion of
inaccurate information. While the EPA agrees that using tables to
present scientific terms and units can be a way for systems to
configure the data in a concise manner, that is not the only way that
data can be provided in a meaningful way for the public, and as a
result, the agency is finalizing requirements that will allow systems
the flexibility to decide how to present contaminant data, including in
tables as seen in current CCRs, in a manner best suited for their
customers.
3. Final Revisions
The EPA is finalizing amendments to Sec. 141.153(d)(2) to state
that ``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.'' The rule does not allow the contaminant data to be presented
in such a way that it would be difficult for consumers to read or
understand; systems may continue to use one or more tables to display
contaminant data. In addition, the EPA has replaced ``contaminant data
table(s)'' with ``contaminant data section'' throughout Sec.
141.153(d). These final revisions to Sec. 141.153(d) will allow water
systems flexibility in formatting contaminant data to present the
information in a more readable and understandable format.
C. False and Misleading Statements
1. Proposal
In light of the AWIA requirement for the EPA to revise the Consumer
Confidence Report Rule to increase the accuracy of information and risk
communication presented in the CCR, the EPA included a provision in the
proposed rulemaking to explicitly prohibit water systems from including
false or misleading statements in their CCRs. Among other things, 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 clear and accurate reports. Feedback received during the pre-
proposal stakeholder engagement included 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.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
The EPA received many adverse comments on the provision to
explicitly prohibit false and misleading statements in CCRs. Commenters
expressed concern that the provision violates the First Amendment,
noting in particular that it would have a ``chilling effect'' on water
systems leading them to self-censor the information they provide in the
CCRs to avoid potential violation. In the proposed rule, the EPA used
the example that ``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.'' Commenters strongly objected to the
EPA's use of that as an example of a misleading statement and argued
that discouraging or prohibiting systems from using the word ``safe''
to describe their drinking water quality in CCRs, would cause public
distrust and hinder communication with customers, in addition to
contradicting the intent of SDWA to use the CCRs to build the public's
confidence in the safety of drinking water. Commenters also argued
that, in their review, the EPA was inappropriately equating ``safe'' as
without any risk. The commenters noted that the required statement on
vulnerable populations in Sec. 141.154(a), already communicates the
potential health risk to consumers that may be immuno-compromised. One
commenter noted that the existing rule already has sufficient
safeguards against false or misleading statements, and state primacy
agencies are already resolving cases where water systems contradict the
clear meaning of water quality data.
Other commenters supported the provision to prohibit false and
misleading statements, and cited several examples of CCR reports they
felt exemplified misleading communication to customers. The commenters
argued that CCRs should be treated as ``right-to-know'' reports in the
first instance to support educating consumers in a transparent manner
of the risks associated with their drinking water and that statements
water systems make to encourage consumer confidence detract from the
primary purpose and obscure data or information related to potential
health risks to consumers. In particular, commenters highlighted
examples of statements comparing tap sampling results for lead to the
lead action level, and water system conclusions regarding potential
public health impacts even though the lead action level is not a
health-based level but used as a screening tool to assess the efficacy
of corrosion control treatment. For example, even if a system's tap
sampling does not exceed the lead action level, corrosive water can
cause lead to leach into drinking water if it is present in lead
services lines, certain galvanized service lines, as well as premise
plumbing inside the home, including lead-bearing fixtures and solder.
After consideration of the comments on this issue, the EPA agrees
that a provision explicitly prohibiting false or misleading statements
could have a chilling effect on water systems in preparing their
reports. In addition, the existing CCR rule in Sec. 141.151(a)
precludes false statements because it provides that ``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'' and, as demonstrated by decades of
implementation, has not created a ``chilling effect'' on water systems.
Enforcement of the existing CCR requirements could be used to address
instances of a system including false statements or information in
their CCR.
Similarly, the existing CCR rule in Sec. 141.153(h)(5) states that
``systems may include such additional information as they deem
necessary for public education consistent with, and not detracting
from, the purposes of the report.'' The purposes of the report, as
described in Sec. 141.151(a), are: to ``contain information on the
quality of the water . . . and characterize the risk (if any) from
exposure to contaminants detected in the drinking water in an accurate
and understandable manner.'' The EPA interprets these provisions as
precluding misleading statements by water systems because such
statements would detract from the purpose of the report. For example,
the following could mislead customers depending on the context or the
situation: ``Your drinking water contains no lead when it leaves
[[Page 45988]]
our treatment plant.'' This statement, without additional context or
information on other sources of lead in drinking water, and depending
on the relevant system-specific facts, could detract from the purpose
of the report by downplaying the situational information and potential
risks to consumers served by the system. While the statement could be
verified as accurate by the primacy agency, by itself it does not
address other potential sources of lead prior to reaching taps within
households, including lead service lines or premise plumbing, and does
not account for whether a system is operating with Corrosion Control
Treatment (CCT). When consumers have complete information, they can
confidently make decisions and take additional precautions if needed to
protect themselves, particularly, if they may be sensitive to impacts
of a particular contaminant, such as a person that is pregnant in the
case of lead. See section III. E. of this preamble for the discussion
of reporting lead service line inventory or corrosion control efforts
information that will be required in CCRs by 2025 and 2027, under the
LCRR and revised CCR rule respectively (see section VIII. A. of this
preamble for a discussion of the compliance date).
The EPA acknowledges that some systems have struggled with
communicating in an accurate, clear, and understandable manner
regarding the safety of their drinking water and in particular, lead in
drinking water Systems can always work with their primacy agencies if
they have questions about appropriate risk communication, and the EPA
encourages systems to do so. In addition, the EPA is working to address
those concerns in its efforts to revise the NPDWR for lead. For
example, in the proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI), the
EPA proposed to revise the mandatory language about lead in drinking
water in the CCR. Once the final LCRI is promulgated, the EPA intends
to work with stakeholders on developing CCR communication tools and
guidance to continue support CCRs that are accurate, clear,
understandable, and readable with regards to lead as well as other
contaminants.
3. Final Revisions
Upon consideration of the comments received, the EPA has decided
not to include the proposed provision to prohibit false and misleading
statements in the final rule for the reasons described in this section.
The EPA notes that there may be situations where a description of water
as ``safe'' would not be a misleading statement .
D. Risk Communication
1. Proposal
AWIA Section 2008 (SDWA section 1414(c)(4)(F)(i)(I)(bb)) requires
the EPA to revise the CCR Rule to increase the ``accuracy of
information presented, and risk communication'' in the reports. The EPA
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 the EPA agrees would improve risk
communication. Specifically, the NDWAC recommended revising,
simplifying, and clarifying language in Sec. 141.154, which describes
required additional health information that must be included in the
report. The proposed rule included suggested revisions to Sec. 141.153
Content of the reports and Sec. 141.154 Required additional health
information. More specifically, the EPA proposed new definitions in
Sec. 141.153(c) to include in the reports as applicable definitions
for contaminant, parts per million (PPM), parts per billion (PPB),
parts trillion (PPT), pesticide, and herbicide. The EPA also proposed
to change the additional informational language in Sec. 141.154(b) and
(c) for nitrate and arsenic that systems must include when they detect
those contaminants at specified levels below the MCL. The EPA also
proposed revisions in Sec. 141.153(h)(1) that systems include in CCRs
a brief explanation regarding contaminants which may reasonably be
expected to be found in drinking water including bottled water, and
Sec. 141.153(h)(7) that include compliance descriptions for systems
subject to the Total Coliform Rule in 40 CFR part 141, subpart Y to
improve risk communication by simplifying overly technical and
confusing language.
For the required additional informational statement on lead,
arsenic, and nitrate in Sec. 141.154, systems currently may write
their own educational statements in consultation with their primacy
agency. The EPA proposed to extend this type of flexibility to specific
new definitions that the EPA proposed in Sec. 141.153(c)(5) (i.e.,
ppm, ppb, ppt, pesticide, and herbicide); a new proposed requirement
for systems to include an explanatory statement with Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) results in Sec. 141.153(d)(7); and
descriptions of assessments required under the Revised Total Coliform
Rule in Sec. 141.153(h)(7). To ensure consumers receive material that
appropriately reflects water quality and potential health risks, the
EPA proposed 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.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
Several commenters disagreed with the proposed definitions for ppm,
ppb, ppt because the definitions are circular and thus would not
improve consumer understanding and do not provide context on what they
are defining, which would likely confuse the reader. A few commenters
suggested replacing them with analogies such as ``X drops in an Olympic
sized swimming pool,'' or ``one cent out of X dollars.'' The EPA does
not believe it is necessary to provide analogies in regulatory text,
systems may choose to use them in CCRs to support public education
without detracting from the purpose of the purpose of the report,
consistent with Sec. 141.153(h)(5). The EPA agrees with commenters
that the definitions of ppm, ppb, ppt are not necessary to include in
Sec. 141.153(c) to support consumer understanding because the
definitions did not provide helpful information to the readers, are
redundant, and circular. Many, if not all, reports already include the
definition of the acronyms, and some include additional explanations or
analogies.
Several commenters mentioned that the EPA should further revise the
mandatory language to improve readability, clarity, and
understandability, noting that the required language is cumbersome,
difficult to understand, and duplicative. One commenter expressed
concern that the language in Sec. 141.153(h)(1) gives customers a
false sense of security over the safety of bottled water and noted that
it may be a safe alternative during emergency situations. A few
commenters support providing systems with flexibility in developing CCR
content, and recommended the EPA expand the flexibility to develop
alternative language for all mandatory language.
The EPA received several comments on the additional health
information statements for arsenic and nitrate in Sec. 141.154(b) and
(c). A few commenters suggested that the EPA further edit the
statements to improve the readability and simplify the language to
lower the calculated reading level. Some commenters claim that the
health statements erode consumer confidence and cause confusion because
they are required to be made in the absence of an MCL violation. A few
commenters
[[Page 45989]]
recommended revising discussion on monitoring frequency in Sec.
141.154(b) and (c) and note that the statements do not indicate a
violation, and if the system did violate the standard, they would be
required to provide consumers with public notice. Another commenter
recommended that the EPA should require a more robust discussion of
health effects of contaminants.
The EPA disagrees with commenters that the CCR rule should allow
systems the flexibility to develop alternative language for all
required CCR text in Sec. Sec. 141.153 and 141.154 because the agency
believes the mandatory text in the rule supports consistent
communication and reduces burden on systems to develop their own
content and it reduces the burden for primacy agencies to review the
content. In addition, SDWA section 1414(c)(4)(B) specifies required
content in CCR, including brief statements regarding the health
concerns of contaminants when there is an MCL violation, provided by
the EPA.
3. Final Revisions
As part of the final rule, the EPA is finalizing language in
Sec. Sec. 141.153 and 141.154 and definitions in Sec. 141.153(c) for
contaminant, pesticide, and herbicide as proposed. The EPA is also
finalizing revisions to regulatory text in Sec. 141.153(h)(1) that
systems include in CCRs to provide a brief explanation regarding
contaminants that may reasonably be expected to be found in drinking
water including bottled water and Sec. 141.153(h)(7) that include
compliance descriptions for systems subject to the Total Coliform Rule
in 40 CFR part 141, subpart Y. The EPA is finalizing as proposed the
flexibility for systems to use alternative informational statements
with approval from their primacy agency. As described in this section,
the EPA is not including the proposed requirement in Sec. 141.153(c)
for reports to include definitions of ppm, ppb, ppt.
E. Corrosion Control Efforts, Action Level Exceedances Information in
CCRs, and Other Lead Related Provisions
1. Proposal
AWIA amended SDWA section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv) and (vii) to require
the CCRs to include information on ``corrosion control efforts'' and to
identify any lead ALEs for which corrective action has been required
during the monitoring period covered by the CCR. The EPA proposed
several revisions to the CCR rule to meet these statutory directives.
To meet the AWIA requirement for reporting on ``corrosion control
efforts,'' the EPA proposed that CWSs would need to include in the CCR
an explanation of ``the corrosion control efforts the system is taking
in accordance with 40 CFR part 141, subpart I Control of Lead and
Copper.'' In addition, the proposed revised CCR rule at Sec.
141.153(c)(3)(v) also required CCRs to include the following definition
of ``corrosion control efforts'' in the report: 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,
the EPA proposed that systems would develop their own statement to
describe their ``corrosion control efforts'' as defined in the proposed
rulemaking because of the variation in the type of corrosion control
efforts implemented by individual systems. However, the EPA also
requested comments on whether the revised rule should include
prescribed language for describing a system's corrosion control
efforts.
To meet the AWIA requirement for systems to report lead ALEs, the
EPA proposed in Sec. 141.153(d)(8) to require systems to clearly
identify in the contaminant data section any lead ALE for which
corrective action was required during the monitoring period covered by
the CCR, the steps consumers can take to reduce their exposure to lead
and a description of any corrective actions the system has taken or
will take.
The EPA also requested comments on whether the revised rule should
include prescribed language for describing a system's lead ALE and
corrective action. The EPA also requested comments on what information
consumers would find most helpful in the CCR when a PWS identifies the
actions being taken to address corrosion control efforts (Sec.
141.153(h)(8)(iii)) or when a system is required to identify an ALE and
describe any corrective actions the system has or will take (Sec.
141.153(d)(8)).
The EPA proposed a minor modification to the statement on the lead
service line (LSL) inventory requirement in Sec. 141.153(h)(8)(ii)
(renumbered from Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(xi) that was codified during the
LCRR rulemaking) by adding that systems need to include a link to their
LSL inventory if it is available on a publicly accessible website.
While the EPA has proposed additional revisions to Sec. Sec. 141.153
and 141.154 within the proposed LCRI, the EPA has not proposed to delay
the compliance date for revisions made under the LCRR to Sec. Sec.
141.153 and 141.154 except for Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(xii). The proposed
revisions to the CCR rule renumbered Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(xii) to Sec.
141.153(h)(8)(i) as a technical edit.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
The EPA received many comments on the proposed requirements for the
corrosion control effort description in the report. Several commenters
recommended that the EPA prescribe specific text, noting that plain
language is difficult for systems to develop on their own, especially
small systems that do not have the resources. Commenters also noted
that standard language helps both systems and primacy agencies,
especially those without the authority to enforce guidance or the
capacity to review each system's explanation of their corrosion control
efforts for adequacy. Commenters also expressed concern that allowing
systems to write their statements will add confusion to the reports and
increase the likelihood of inaccurate or incomplete descriptions. Some
of these commenters did, however, suggest allowing operators to include
additional details specific to their system or allow additional
flexibility for systems to work with their primacy agencies to adapt
the message as necessary.
A few commenters recommended that the rule avoid prescribed
language, and instead preferred the EPA provide recommended template
language in guidance. These commenters supported the flexibility for
systems to develop messages to best communicate with their customers
and noted that there are a variety of methods that systems can use to
meet the corrosion control requirements. One commenter noted that some
States do not have the option for their regulations to be more
stringent than Federal regulations, which prevents those States from
requiring systems to use non-binding template language. Several
commenters suggested that the final rule include both prescribed
language and flexibility for water systems to write their own
statement. Some commenters suggested the rule include some parameters
describing corrosion control efforts, such as a list of options or
minimum required content. Some commenters requested clarification on
whether the corrosion control efforts described would be limited to
actions the system takes for the purpose of controlling corrosion
deliberately (e.g., because the system is required to do so), and the
time frame for the actions described.
The EPA agrees with commenters that identified benefits to both
systems and
[[Page 45990]]
primacy agencies of requiring the use of prescribed language for
corrosion control efforts while also providing some flexibility so that
systems can write their own statement with equivalent information.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to controlling corrosion, and
therefore it would be difficult to prescribe the use of a template
without allowing flexibility. Under the LCR, some, but not all, systems
are required to go through a process to get a State or the EPA
designation of optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT). Some systems
without a designation of OCCT have nonetheless installed treatment to
control corrosion while others have not. Moreover, all systems conduct
tap sampling to assess corrosivity of water. To ensure the description
accurately and clearly describes the system's corrosion control
efforts, while also providing systems with flexibility in crafting
their explanation to fit their unique circumstances, the final rule
includes two templates depending on whether the system has a
designation of OCCT. Each template also serves to identify the required
elements that must be included in an equivalent statement if a system
chooses to write its own statement.
The EPA received several comments related to the proposed
definition of corrosion control efforts. Commenters expressed concern
that the proposed definition did not meet AWIA's intent to improve
readability, clarity, and understandability, and noted that it used
jargon terms, including ``corrosivity,'' ``pH,'' and ``alkalinity''. A
few commenters recommended either revising the definition to simplify
it or removing it from Sec. 141.153(c). However, a definition of
``corrosion control efforts'' in the CCR rule itself is useful for
establishing parameters on the kinds of actions that systems could
identify in their reports as efforts to control corrosion. Therefore,
the final rule removes the definition from Sec. 141.153 (c) and has
incorporated it in the requirements for systems to describe corrosion
control effort in their CCR (see Sec. 141.153(h)(8)(iii)).
The EPA received several comments on the proposed requirements for
information related to lead ALEs and corrective actions for systems to
include in their reports in Sec. 141.153(d)(8). A couple of commenters
suggested that the EPA prescribe language in regulation and allow
systems to work with their primacy agency to modify the message as
appropriate. A few commenters did not support the option to include
required text in regulation text that the EPA requested comments on,
and instead preferred that the EPA provide example language in
guidance. A couple of commenters believe the additional information in
the CCR on ALEs is unnecessary because it is duplicative of existing PN
requirements for systems to provide Tier 1 notice when a system has a
lead ALE according to Sec. 141.202(a). A couple of commenters
supported the inclusion of steps consumers can take to reduce their
exposure. One commenter suggested that health effects language should
also be included in Sec. 141.153(h)(8)(iii).
The EPA does not agree with commenters advocating for the rule to
prescribe specific text for describing corrective actions the system
has taken or will take to address an ALE because of the wide range of
possible corrective actions that systems might take. The EPA disagrees
that including information about ALEs is duplicative of PN requirements
because PN serves a different purpose in alerting consumers of
potential health effects, whereas CCRs provide an annual summary of the
information, and offer an opportunity to provide consumers with updates
on what the system is doing to take corrective action. Some consumers
may have missed the initial notification or updates, and since many CWS
post their CCRs online, they can refer to the information at their
convenience. In addition, AWIA amended SDWA section 1414(c)(4)(B(iv)
and (vii) to require CCRs to include information on a system's
corrosion control efforts as well as identifying lead ALEs for which
corrective action has been required by the EPA or the State. Therefore,
the final rule reflects those statutory requirements.
3. Final Revisions
In response to comments, the EPA has modified the requirements from
the proposed rule for systems to describe their corrosion control
efforts requirements in Sec. 141.153(h)(8)(iii) and eliminated the
requirement for the CCR to include the proposed definition of corrosion
control efforts from Sec. 141.153(c). The final rule requires systems
to include a description of corrosion control efforts using either a
prescribed template depending on whether the system is using OCCT that
was designated by the State or the Administrator in Sec.
141.153(h)(8)(iii) or their own statement that includes equivalent
information.
The EPA is providing a minor clarification to Sec.
141.153(h)(8)(ii) (renumbered from Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(xi) that was
codified during the LCRR rulemaking) to appropriately reflect the LCRR
requirements to include water systems that may have written statements
in lieu of an inventory if the system has no lead, galvanized requiring
replacement, or lead status unknown service lines. The requirement
promulgated with the LCRR rulemaking that was renumbered in the
proposed CCR Revisions required water systems to include a statement
that a service line inventory has been prepared and provide
instructions to access the inventory, including when the inventory
consists of a statement that there are no lead service lines. Water
systems may have written statements in lieu of the inventory only when
the system has no galvanized requiring replacement or unknown service
lines, in addition to having no lead service lines; therefore, Sec.
141.153(h)(8)(ii) is revised to address this clarification. The EPA is
finalizing Sec. 141.153(d)(8) that requires systems to clearly
identify ALEs and describe the corrective actions they have taken or
will take, with a minor clarifying edit by adding ``in drinking water''
following the requirement to include the steps consumers can take to
reduce their exposure.
IV. Translation Assistance
CCRs are valuable tools to inform consumers and allow them to make
informed decisions about the health and safety of their drinking water.
The EPA's existing CCR rule requires water systems serving communities
``with a large proportion of non-English speaking residents, as
determined by the Primacy Agency,'' to include in their CCR
``information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance
of the report or contain a telephone number or address where such
residents may contact the system to obtain a translated copy of the
report or assistance in the appropriate language.'' See Sec.
141.153(h)(3).
SDWA section 1414(b)(4)(F)(i)(I)(aa), directs the EPA to revise the
CCR requirements to ``increase the readability, clarity, and
understandability of the information presented in consumer confidence
reports.'' As described in the proposal, as of 2019, an estimated 8.3
percent of the people in the United States were considered to have
limited English proficiency. Consumers with limited proficiency in
English who are not able to read and understand the reports, or do not
have sufficient access to that information, may not have as complete an
understanding about the quality of their drinking water as more
proficient English-speaking consumers.
To maintain primacy states must have the authority to require CWSs
to provide
[[Page 45991]]
CCRs as required under the CCR rule. See Sec. 142.10(b)(6)(vii) and
SDWA section 1413(a)(2).
A. Translation Support Requirements for CWSs and States
1. Proposal
The EPA proposed revisions to the CCR rule and the primacy
requirements to fulfill the statutory mandate to increase the
readability, clarity, and understandability of the information
presented in CCRs. As noted above, the EPA's existing CCR rule requires
water systems serving communities ``with a large proportion of non-
English speaking residents, as determined by the Primacy Agency,'' to
include in their CCR ``information in the appropriate language(s)
regarding the importance of the report or contain a telephone number or
address where such residents may contact the system to obtain a
translated copy of the report or assistance in the appropriate
language'' (Sec. 141.153(h)(3), emphasis is added). The EPA proposed
to change ``or'' to ``and'' so that systems would be required to
include both the statement about the importance of the report and
contact information to obtain a translated copy of the report or
assistance in the appropriate language(s). To address the concern that
some systems may lack the capacity to provide translated copies of the
report or translation assistance, the EPA proposed that systems
``unable to provide translation support'' would have to include contact
information for consumers to obtain translation assistance from the
State. The EPA also proposed that primacy States would have to provide
translation assistance to consumers of a water system upon request and
provide contact information where consumers can obtain translation
assistance for inclusion in the system's report.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
Several commenters expressed general support for improving the
readability and understandability of the CCRs for all consumers,
including those with limited English language proficiency. However,
several commenters raised concerns that water systems do not have the
capacity to either prepare translated copies of the report or provide
translation assistance in the appropriate language. Some commenters
expressed concern that States lack capacity to provide translation
assistance directly to a system's customers when water systems are
unable to provide translation support. In addition, some commenters
suggested that it would not be appropriate to require States to provide
translation assistance directly to a water system's customers. Some
commenters suggested that the EPA should provide pre-approved
translation services or translated versions of CCR templates in
multiple languages to assist systems and States.
The EPA agrees with commenters that the agency can significantly
reduce the burden on both systems and States by preparing translated
templates for CCRs. In response to comments, the EPA will prepare
translated templates for CCRs that include translations of technical
terms used in the reports and all mandatory statements (e.g., health
effects statements required under the EPA's NPDWRs). These materials
will be made publicly accessible on the EPA's website and updated as
needed (e.g., when new or revised mandatory health effects language is
promulgated in future revisions to the CCR rule). Currently, the EPA
has initiated the process of preparing translated templates and
anticipates completion well before the compliance date of the rule.
The EPA also agrees with commenters that it would not be
appropriate for water systems to shift their responsibility for
providing readable, understandable CCRs to the primacy agency on the
water system's unilateral determination that it is unable to provide
translation support. Moreover, because the EPA is providing substantial
support for translation assistance, the EPA believes that the
challenges of preparing translated reports or providing translation
assistance is substantially reduced. At the same time the EPA agrees
with comments that failure to translate CCRs may result in millions of
consumers not understanding the reports, which means that Congress'
direction to increase the readability, clarity, and understandability
of the CCRs would not be fulfilled. As a result, the EPA is finalizing
a requirement for water systems serving communities with a large
proportion of consumers with limited English proficiency to include
information in the report where such consumers may obtain a translated
copy of the report, or assistance in the appropriate language(s), or
the report must be in the appropriate language(s). Some systems are
already meeting this requirement; for systems that are not already
meeting this requirement, the EPA's provision of translated templates
for CCRs and translated mandatory language will address concerns about
system capacity and availability of translation services. In addition,
the EPA is finalizing a requirement for primacy States to provide
technical assistance to water systems in meeting their obligations to
provide translated reports or translation assistance. The requirement
to provide technical assistance for this purpose is consistent with the
obligations that States accept when they obtain primacy to oversee
implementation of the NPDWRs and the CCR rule and is typically covered
by the scope of work when they accept EPA grants under section 1443 of
SDWA. See SDWA section 1413(a)(2) and ``FR Template: Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) Program--SDWA 1443(a)'' located in the docket
for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260). Because the EPA is
making publicly available translated CCR templates and translated
mandatory language for inclusion in the report, the burden of this
requirement on both systems and States is significantly reduced and
there should not be any water systems that are ``unable to provide
translation support'' to their customers.
3. Final Revisions
Section 141.153(h)(3) of the final rule requires water systems
serving communities with a large proportion of consumers with limited
English proficiency, as determined by the Primacy Agency, to include in
the report a telephone number, address, or contact information in the
appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of the report and
either information where such consumers may obtain a translated copy of
the report or assistance in the appropriate language(s), or the report
must be in the appropriate language(s). Each State with primacy must,
as a condition of primacy, provide water systems with technical
assistance in meeting the applicable requirements in Sec.
141.153(h)(3) . Examples of technical assistance include providing
water systems with contact information for inclusion in the system's
report where consumers can contact the State for translation assistance
upon request or providing resources for water systems to translate
their reports, including EPA-provided translations of required content
for CCRs (e.g., health effects language, definitions) and translated
templates of reports. Each application for approval of a program
revision that adopts the revised CCR must include: A description of how
the State intends to provide water systems with technical assistance in
meeting the requirement in Sec. 141.53(h)(3) to provide translation
assistance in communities with a large proportion of consumers with
limited
[[Page 45992]]
English proficiency. In communities with a large proportion of
consumers with limited English proficiency, as determined by the
Primacy Agency, the report must contain telephone number, address, or
contact information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the
importance of the report and either contain information where such
consumers may obtain a translated copy of the report or assistance in
the appropriate language(s), or the report must be in the appropriate
language(s).
B. Recipient and Subrecipient Meaningful Access
1. Proposal
The EPA also proposed a provision in the CCR rule that references
requirements in 40 CFR part 7 that are applicable to recipients of the
agency's assistance. The EPA proposed to require water systems that are
recipients of EPA assistance to provide ``meaningful access'' to
information in the reports to persons with limited English proficiency.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
Several commenters expressed confusion about the application of the
proposed requirements in Sec. 141.153(h)(3) and (h)(3)(i) and noted
that the rule did not clearly define a water system's obligation to
provide ``meaningful access'' to information in the reports to persons
with limited English proficiency. In light of these adverse comments,
and the fact that water systems are already obligated to comply with
nondiscrimination statutes, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed
requirement in the CCR Rule at Sec. 141.153(h)(3)(i). The EPA's
decision for the CCR rule under SDWA does not change any obligations
that water systems that are recipients or subrecipients of EPA
financial assistance already have under title VI to provide language
assistance services to persons with limited English proficiency in
order to avoid discrimination on the basis of national origin. The EPA,
has however, concluded that it would not be appropriate to create an
obligation that is enforceable under SDWA.
3. Final Revisions
For the reasons described above, at this time, the EPA is not
finalizing a requirement in the CCR Rule at Sec. 141.153(h)(3)(i) to
require systems that are a recipient of EPA assistance, as defined in
40 CFR 7.25, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to
information in the reports to persons with limited English proficiency
who are served by the water system.
C. Language Access Plans
1. Proposal
The EPA also proposed in Sec. 141.155(i) to require systems
serving 100,000 or more persons to develop plans for providing
meaningful access to the reports for consumers with limited English
proficiency, to evaluate the plans annually, and to update as necessary
and report with the certification required under Sec. 141.155(c). The
proposed rulemaking also required the system to evaluate the languages
spoken by consumers with LEP served by the system and the system's
anticipated approach to address translation needs.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
Several commenters disagreed with the proposed requirement for
systems serving 100,000 or more people to develop a plan for providing
meaningful access to consumers with limited English proficiency. One
commenter stated that it would be an inefficient use of resources when
systems already have established practices to support consumers with
LEP. Another commenter noted that although they disagree with requiring
a language access plan, they supported limiting the requirement for the
plan to large systems serving 100,000 or more people. Other commenters
suggested that the requirements for the plan are unclear. The EPA
disagrees that requiring systems serving more than 100,000 people to
develop a plan is an inefficient use of resources. To clarify that the
purpose of the plan is to prepare to assist consumers with LEP, the
final rule deletes the phrase ``meaningful access'' and instead uses
the word ``assistance.'' The form of the assistance is not specified;
the purpose of the requirement is for systems to plan for the needs of
consumers with LEP that is appropriate for the specific system, not to
mandate a particular type of assistance. The plans will be a valuable
resource for operators and/or designated CWS staff. The content of the
plans must include an evaluation of languages spoken in the community
served by the water system. As noted above, in developing the plan, the
system could collect EPA language access resources, available points of
contact for translation support, and training materials for new staff.
Water systems may consider using 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
populations with LEP in their service area. The EPA determined that
systems serving more than 100,000 persons tend to serve large cities
that likely have a diverse population, including consumers with LEP,
the makeup of which can change rapidly, and the agency believes it is
beneficial for those systems to regularly evaluate the population of
consumers with LEP they serve to identify approaches and opportunities
for access to translated CCRs. These systems serve almost 50 percent of
the population. Several of these larger systems already provide
translation resources to their consumers.
3. Final Revisions
The EPA is finalizing the requirement in Sec. 141.155(i) for
systems that serve 100,000 or more people to develop a plan for
providing assistance to consumers with limited English proficiency. The
system must evaluate the languages spoken by persons with limited
English proficiency served by the water system, and the system's
anticipated approach to address translation needs. Plans must be
evaluated annually and updated as necessary and reported with the
certification required in Sec. 141.155(c). Systems may use an existing
plan if it meets the requirements in Sec. 141.155(i).
V. Consumer Confidence Report Delivery
A. Biannual Delivery
1. Proposal
AWIA section 2008 amended SDWA section 1414(c)(4)(F)(i)(II)) to
mandate that the Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions require CWSs
serving 10,000 or more persons to provide CCRs to customers at least
twice per year (biannually). Systems currently are required to provide
a CCR to each customer annually by July 1 of each year that contains
information and data collected during the previous calendar year. The
EPA proposed that systems serving 10,000 or more persons deliver a
second CCR by December 31 of each year. Additionally, the EPA also
requested comment on the delivery dates proposed in the Consumer
Confidence Report Rule Revisions in Sec. 141.155(j).
The EPA specifically requested comment on the timing and
feasibility of having water systems deliver the first report sooner in
the year, for example by April 1 and deliver the second report by
October 1 of each year. The EPA asked for input on whether the deadline
to
[[Page 45993]]
deliver the second report should be three months or six months after
delivering the first report, or some other length of time. The EPA
requested feedback on alternative approaches for biannual delivery,
including if the reports should cover the previous 6 months, rather
than provide an annual summary. For systems serving less than 10,000
consumers, the EPA asked if the original delivery deadline (July 1)
should remain, or if the CCR delivery deadline should be updated to
reflect the first delivery deadline for large systems (serving 10,000
or more people), if revised from July 1.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
The EPA received several comments on the delivery dates and timing
of the biannual delivery requirement proposed in Sec. 141.155(j) of
the CCR Rule Revisions. For systems serving 10,000 or more persons who
will be required to deliver their CCR's biannually, several commenters
were in favor of keeping the proposed delivery dates of July 1 for the
first report and December 31 for the second report, noting that it will
provide water systems with an additional opportunity to communicate
important information to consumers on a more frequent basis. One
commenter also stated that systems serving 10,000 or more persons
typically have no issues with meeting the current timeline for CCR
delivery and agree with the EPA's current reporting requirements to
deliver the first report by July 1 of each year and the proposed
reporting requirements to deliver a second report by December 31. The
EPA agrees with commenters that the biannual delivery requirement for
systems serving 10,000 or more persons will allow water systems to
communicate with consumers more frequently and allow those systems to
communicate information about the quality of their water in a timelier
manner. By finalizing the requirement that CCRs be delivered
biannually, the EPA is ensuring that consumers will have more frequent
access to information about the quality of their drinking water, while
meeting Congress' intent to provide critical updates on a timelier
basis and minimizing the burden by only requiring a subset of community
water systems to provide a 6-month update in additional to the annual
report.
While many commenters agreed with the EPA's proposed delivery dates
of July 1 for the first report and December 31 for the second report
for those systems serving 10,000 or more persons, a few commenters felt
that the timing of the second report would be confusing to customers.
They believed that consumers would be confused with the information
appearing in more than one report a because a violation or action level
exceedance that occurs during the first six months of the year would be
reported to customers in two different CCRs, spaced six months apart,
delivered by December 31 in the 6-month update, and again the following
year by July 1 in the annual summary. For violations or action level
exceedances that occur during the second half of a year, those would
only be reported in one CCR delivered by July 1 the following year with
the annual summary. Commenters also noted that because systems will
also need to provide the PN, customers could become confused with
multiple notices for the same violation or lead ALE. While the EPA
agrees that receiving a 6-month update that contains either applicable
information based on samples collected between January and June of the
following year or the original annual report (summarizing January
through December of the previous calendar year) may be confusing to
consumers at first, systems can use the biannual reports (annual report
and 6-month update) as an opportunity to provide an update on the
violation or situation, especially if the situation has been resolved.
The EPA also has determined that some consumers may not receive an
initial notice or report, and therefore overlap in CCR rule and PN rule
will support broader awareness. Additionally, the EPA sought comment on
whether the deadline to deliver the second report be 3 months or 6
months after delivering the first report, or some other length of time
and most commenters agreed with the EPA's proposal to deliver the
second report 6 months after the first report.
A few commenters also noted that requiring the delivery of a second
CCR could increase the burden for States and CWSs. While the EPA
acknowledges that increased burden, the EPA notes that this is a
statutory requirement. To reduce burden, the EPA structured the
requirement so that water systems could meet the requirement without
having to prepare a new report if there are no violations or action
level exceedances or UCMR results from a prior year to report in the 6-
month update.
3. Final Revisions
As part of this final rule, the EPA will continue to require the
first report to be delivered by July 1 of each year and has revised the
CCR rule to require that a second CCR must be delivered by December 31
of the same year for systems serving 10,000 or more persons. The report
delivered by July 1 must continue to contain information and data
collected during the previous calendar year and the second report
delivered by December 31 must include a 6-month update, if applicable,
based on information and data collected between January 1 and June 30
of the current calendar year. Systems without a violation or an ALE for
the six-month period between reports, i.e., information between January
and June of the current year, may resend the original annual report
(summarizing January through December of the previous calendar year).
Systems that have an ALE, a violation, or who receive results for UCMR
from the reporting year, must include this information in a 6-month
update that accompanies the original annual report.
B. Electronic Delivery
1. Proposal
As part of the CCR Rule Revisions, SDWA section 1414(c)(4)(F)(ii)
requires the EPA to ``allow delivery consistent with methods described
in the memorandum `Safe Drinking Water Act--Consumer Confidence Report
Rule Delivery Options' issued by the EPA on January 3, 2013 (USEPA,
2013).'' 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
Sec. 141.155(a) of this rule, consistent with the statute, the 2013
Safe Drinking Water Act--Consumer Confidence Report Rule Delivery
Options, and current practices, the EPA is including options that allow
CWSs to use electronic CCR delivery, with an option for customers to
request a paper CCR.
Additionally, in the House Report accompanying AWIA, 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
[[Page 45994]]
those customers that want them.'' H.R. Rep. No. 115-380, at 27 (2017).
Accordingly, the EPA proposed that systems using electronic delivery
methods in Sec. 141.155(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) must provide a paper copy
of the report to any customer upon request. Consistent with the 2013
delivery options memo, the EPA also proposed 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.
The proposed rulemaking also incorporated the NDWAC's
recommendation to require systems that deliver the report by mailing a
notification combined with posting their CCR on a publicly accessible
website to maintain the report on the website for three years following
its issuance in Sec. 141.155(a)(4). This is consistent with existing
record keeping requirements for CWSs in Sec. 141.155(h).
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
While many commenters support allowing for electronic delivery
requirements as outlined in the EPA's 2013 memorandum, many commenters
feel that limiting electronic delivery options to those identified in
the memorandum fails to take advantage of changing technology and could
unnecessarily limit innovation. Commenters also point out that the ways
customers expect to be able to access information has changed since the
CCR rule was initially promulgated in 1998, and even since the 2013
electronic delivery memorandum was issued. They note that the EPA's
proposed revisions fail to properly take these advances into
consideration by allowing for only a static electronic version of a
printed CCR online. Commenters suggest that the EPA should allow for
additional flexibility in how CCRs are currently delivered and how they
could be delivered in the future by allowing primacy agencies to
approve other methods of direct delivery in writing. The EPA agrees
that new forms of technology which can provide additional electronic
delivery flexibility may become available in the future, such as by a
phone application; therefore, the EPA has finalized requirements that
will allow systems the flexibility to implement additional direct
delivery methods, if approved in writing by the primacy agency.
AWIA directed the EPA to allow electronic delivery methods
consistent with the 2013 memorandum, and the options for electronic
delivery in the final rule are consistent with the memo. Since issuing
the 2013 delivery options memo, the EPA has found through
implementation experience that systems most often use the electronic
delivery option by including a notice of availability of the report
along with the website address that provides a direct link to the
report either in the customer's bill, or in a separate notice, such as
a post card mailed to the customer, to meet the requirement that the
CCR be directly delivered if it is not mailed to the customer. The EPA
received a few comments on the references in Sec. 141.155(a)(1)(ii)
and (iii) to a ``direct link'' in the proposed revisions to delivery
requirements. These provisions allow systems to mail a notification
that the report is available on a webiste via a ``direct link'' or
email a ``direct link'' or electronic version of the report. The
requirement to provide a ``direct link'' (sometimes refered to as ``one
click'') was originally included in the 2013 memorandum as an
interpretation of the ``otherwise directly deliver'' provision in the
1998 CCR rule. Commenters argued that by incorporating the ``direct
link'' in the revised CCR rule, it stifles innovation in providing
information and engaging customers because the rule does not allow any
navigation away from the required CCR content. Commenters mentioned
that by changing the rule to remove the ``direct link'' requirement,
the CCR could be published as a dynamic, interactive, flexible, and
adaptive experience where customers can explore data while interacting
with information. The EPA diagrees with the commenters suggestion that
the ``direct link'' provisions are a barrier to how customers enage
with the information in the CCR, because the ``direct link'' provisions
allow customers to easily find and view their CCR. Moreover, the
requierment is consistent with the statutory direction in SDWA
1414(c)(4)(F)(ii) to ``allow delivery . . . by methods consistent with
methods described in'' the 2013 memorandum. Systems could choose to
supplement the direct link to the CCR with links to additional
information, or use other ``dynamic'' or ``interactive'' features,
consistent with Sec. 141.153(h)(5). The systems would still be
required to provide paper copies upon request, as indicated in Sec.
141.155(a)(2). Also, the EPA does not exclude systems from establishing
a landing page that contains ``direct links'' to CCRs, along with other
information and links that allow customers to interact with the
portions of the CCR most relevant to them.
A few commenters also stated that where systems solely rely on
electronic delivery methods, customers in underserved communities,
including those without consistent internet access, may not receive the
report. They suggested that the EPA consider other accessibility
options for areas and customers without stable internet or computer
access, noting that nearly one in four U.S. households lacks home
internet. They also state that newly developed CCR resources should be
compatible for mobile phone access to increase access to CCRs. The EPA
agrees that electronic delivery may not be right for every customer,
particularly those customers who live in communities without consistent
and reliable internet or access to computers; however, these challenges
have been addressed by allowing customers to request a paper copy of
their CCR. The EPA is requiring that systems using electronic delivery
methods described in Sec. 141.155(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) must provide a
paper copy of the report to any customer upon request. See section V.E.
of this preamble for revisions to the ``good faith'' delivery
provisions in this final rule to encourage at least one form of non-
electronic delivery where a system is aware of a substantial number of
bill-paying consumers without access to electronic forms of the report.
3. Final Revisions
The final rule allows CWSs to use electronic CCR delivery methods
consistent with the 2013 delivery options memo if they provide a paper
copy of their CCR to any customer upon request. For systems that
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 the time notification is made.
These requirements are consistent with the requirements of SDWA section
1414(c)(4)(F)(ii), as amended by AWIA, and require systems to mail a
notification that the report is available on a website via a direct
link; email a direct link or electronic version of the report; or mail
a paper copy of the report if requested by the customer. The EPA also
added in Sec. 141.155(a)(iv) the clause ``Another direct delivery
method approved in writing by the primacy agency'' to allow primacy
agencies to approve additional direct delivery methods.
C. Posting Online
1. Proposal
Currently, Sec. 141.155(f) of the existing rule requires CWSs that
serve 100,000 or more persons to post their current year's CCR on a
publicly accessible site on the
[[Page 45995]]
internet. In the proposed revisions to the CCR rule, the EPA requested
comments on whether to lower the threshold of system size subject to
this requirement to post their CCR on the internet in Sec. 141.155(f),
specifically systems that serve 75,000 or more customers, 50,000 or
more customers, or a different threshold. The EPA also requested input
on what challenges this requirement may pose to PWSs serving fewer than
100,000 persons.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
Of the comments received on the topic for lowering the threshold of
system size required to post CCRs online, most were supportive of the
revision. Of the commenters in support of reducing the threshold, most
favor applying the requirement to systems that serve 50,000 or more
people, with several commenters noting that many systems of that size
are already posting CCRs online. A couple of commenters recommended the
threshold be lowered to systems serving 10,000 or more persons, with
commenters noting that lowering the threshold of systems who are
required to post their CCRs on the internet would help to increase
accessibility and make it easier for people to find their report
online. However, a couple of commenters cautioned against reducing the
threshold below the existing one (systems serving more than 100,000)
due to concerns that it will cause an increase in resource demands for
systems and primacy agencies and that small community systems may not
have a website or dedicated personnel responsible for updating and
maintaining it and could incur the burden to pay for a third party to
maintain a website.
The EPA agrees with commenters that reducing the threshold below
the existing one will improve accessibility for consumers served by
those systems. The EPA also agrees that the potential burden for
systems serving fewer than 100,000 persons could be significant,
particularly for those systems who do not currently post their CCR
online and could incur substantial costs to do so; however, several
commenters have stated that it should be feasible for systems serving
50,000 or more persons to post their CCR's online with minimal burden
since many of those same systems are already posting their CCR's
online. Based on the comments received and the increased access
customers would have to CCRs, the EPA agrees that requiring those
systems to post their CCRs online is achievable. Also, because systems
serving 50,000 or more persons will be required to make their lead
service line inventory publicly accessible online under the LCRR
(USEPA, 2021c), some portion of those systems will already be posting
information online and thus will likely not incur a substantial burden
when posting their CCRs online.
3. Final Revisions
This final rule requires each system serving 50,000 or more to post
its current year's report to a publicly accessible site on the
internet. These revisions will strengthen the public accessibility to
information in CCRs. The existing CCR rule requirement for systems
serving 100,000 or more people to post the CCR report on a publicly
accessible site on the internet was promulgated almost 20 years ago
when access to free or low-cost social media, web hosting services, and
filesharing platforms that water systems can use to host their
inventories online were not as widely available as they are today. The
EPA selected 50,000 or more persons as the threshold for this revised
requirement because it will allow more customers nationwide to access
CCRs online and is feasible since most of these systems already display
CCR information on their websites.
D. Delivery Certification
1. Proposal
The EPA proposed to revise the requirement in Sec. 141.155(c) for
systems to mail a copy of the report to the primacy agency to instead
``provide'' a copy. In addition, the EPA requested comments on
potential revisions to the timing for CWSs to send certifications of
delivery of the CCR to their primacy agencies, in accordance with in
Sec. 141.155(c). The existing CCR rule requires water systems to mail
a copy of the report to the primacy agency, followed within three
months by a certification that the report has been distributed to
customers and that the information is correct and consistent with the
compliance monitoring data previously submitted to the primacy agency.
The EPA specifically sought comment on benefits or challenges for water
systems if they would be required to certify delivery of the CCR at the
same time they distribute it to customers. In addition, the EPA asked
for input on requiring systems to provide the delivery certification
within 10 days or 30 days of delivery or if there are additional
delivery certification dates the EPA should consider.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
The EPA received many comments on the timing for sending the
primacy agency delivery certification. A couple of the commenters
opposed changing the existing time period of 3 months for systems to
send the delivery certification to the primacy agencies, noting that
having 3 months is an appropriate amount of time for water systems to
certify delivery, with consideration for other priorities and
responsibilities that must be addressed by the system. Several
commenters supported changing the delivery certification timing to
improve system compliance and record keeping for primacy agencies
because a longer interval between the deadline for distribution and
certification increases the likelihood of a water system forgeting to
submit their delivery certfication to the primacy agency, resulting in
a violation. One commenter also stated that the current requirement to
issue CCRs by July 1 but not provide a certification of delivery until
October 1 often results in a delay of documents submitted to the State
and a missed opportunity to promptly correct system errors. A couple of
commenters responded that systems should be able to meet the shorter
delivery certification time because some systems are already submitting
CCR delivery certification earlier than October 1, with one commenter
noting that their department requires that CCR delivery certification
be delivered by July 1, and another commenter stating that in their
experience, most systems provide certifications to primacy States
within 30 days of delivery.
The EPA agrees that shortening the delivery certification timeframe
may take systems some time to get accustomed to; however, the EPA
disagrees a shorter certification timeframe would pull resources away
from preparing and delivering the CCRs. Additionally, many comenters
also told the EPA that it would be feasible to submit delivery
notification within a shorter timeframe and also stated that doing so
could help increase compliance with the regulations by prompting
systems to submit their certifications before they forget to do so. The
EPA agrees that shortening the timeline for systems to send the
delivery certification to the primacy agency will decrease the
likelihood that systems forget to submit their delivery certification.
Certification of delivery plays an important role in the EPA's and
primacy agency's oversight and enforcement by making it easier to
[[Page 45996]]
ascertain compliance with the CCR rule requirements and allow primacy
agencies to better target noncompliers. The EPA has determined that by
shortening the certification deadline to a 10-day timeline, it will
allow primacy agencies to track compliance more quickly, and follow-up
with systems to resolve a violation, in order to ensure the public is
effectively informed about their local drinking water.
While several comments supported shortening the timing for
providing the certification, the EPA received mixed feedback on how
much to shorten the deadline (e.g., 10 days, 30 days, or simultaneous
with the deadline for CCR distribution to customers). A few commenters
supported shortening the time period to 10 days, consistent with other
reporting timelines to primacy agencies in Sec. 141.31, including PN
delivery certification. Some commenters preferred a requirement for
systems to provide the certification at the same time they send primacy
agencies a copy of the CCR report--i.e., no later than the date the
system is required to distribute the report. Some commenters noted that
some primacy agencies already require water systems to submit delivery
certifications with a copy of the CCR. On the other hand, one commenter
noted that having a certification deadline that coincides with the
delivery deadline to customers is not feasible.
The EPA agrees that there are feasibility concerns with a
certification deadline that coincides with the delivery deadline to
customers. The EPA agrees that the 10-day time frame for PN
certification is an appropriate benchmark to use for establishing the
timeline for CCR certification. In addition, reducing the time between
CCRs delivery and certification from 3 months to 10 days will help
primacy agencies identify more quickly which systems potentially did
not comply with the delivery requirements or inaccurate compliance
monitoring data in the CCRs in order to address the non-compliance as
soon as possible.
3. Final Revisions
The final rule revises Sec. 141.155(c) to reduce the timeline from
three months to no later than 10 days after the date the system is
required to distribute the report to its customers, that systems will
need to provide a certification to their primacy agency indicating that
the report was distributed to customers and the information is correct
and consistent with the compliance monitoring data submitted to the
primacy agency.
E. Good Faith Delivery
1. Proposal
Current regulations require that PWSs make a good faith effort to
provide the CCR to non-bill paying consumers served by the system in
Sec. 141.155(b). Non-bill paying consumers include renters, like
people who live in apartment buildings, and other users of the water
system who do not receive a bill and therefore do not get direct
delivery of the CCR. The proposed rule incorporated NDWAC's
recommendations to expand examples of ``good faith'' delivery to help
update and clarify approved distribution methods to reach non-bill
paying consumers in Sec. 144.155(b). The following ``good faith''
delivery examples provide more modern outreach approaches that were not
available or as widely used when the original rule was promulgated. The
NDWAC recommendations included 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, advertising
the availability on social media, 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. The EPA specifically sought input on whether the
CCR rule should include additional outreach requirements to enhance
awareness for non-bill paying consumers or a requirement for water
systems to post information on social media or online list-serves to
increase consumer awareness of and access to CCRs.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
The majority of commenters support the EPA's expanded list of
additional examples of good faith delivery methods in Sec. 144.155(b),
which include more modern outreach efforts, such postcards, social
media, public forums, and other good faith efforts to inform non-bill
paying consumers about the availability of water quality reports. One
commenter suggested adding delivery of reports by carrier route to the
list of examples of good-faith delivery methods. The commenter states
that they have been using this method since 1998 and appreciates the
confidence of knowing that the information about the water quality
reports is being delivered to both bill-paying and non-bill paying
consumers along the route. Many commenters specifically supported
allowing water systems to use social media as an expanded form of good
faith delivery because it is a very common, popular, and simple way to
reach consumers, noting that it would increase consumers awareness of
and access to CCRs. While one commenter said that the EPA's current
options for reaching non-bill paying consumers are sufficient, the EPA
should not discount the use of social media as a good faith delivery
method and a way to increase consumer awareness as it is a popular way
for people to receive information. A couple of commenters also
suggested that the EPA consider including a ``reverse 911'' or other
mass communication susbscription services, such as listservs, as
additional expanded methods of good faith delivery.
The EPA agrees that expanding examples of good faith delivery
efforts in Sec. 141.155(b) will help increase accessibility to water
quality reports among non-bill paying consumers. By providing water
systems with expanded examples of good faith delivery methods, the EPA
is giving these systems the flexibility to customize their good faith
delivery efforts so they can better reach non-bill paying consumers at
single billed addresses such as apartments, some manufactured housing
communities, and businesses that are not bill paying customers.
Commenters also noted that non-electronic delivery methods should
be considered as an additional delivery option for consumers who may
not have stable access to a computer or the internet and therefore
would have trouble accessing electronic water quality reports.
Commenters also note that in rural areas, nearly one-fourth of the
population--14.5 million people--lack any opportunity to access to
broadband service. The EPA agrees that non-bill paying consumers at
addresses with a single meter, such as multi-family apartments, some
manufactured housing communities and those in rural areas may be less
likely to receive CCRs due to a lack of internet or because the CWS may
not have their address in their records. The EPA has included in the
final rule additional recommendations in Sec. 144.155(b) for systems
to pay particular attention to consumers that are non-bill paying and
may have challenges with accessing the CCR when electronic delivery
methods are used. The provision states ``where a system is aware that
it serves a substantial number of non-bill paying consumers, the system
is encouraged to directly deliver the reports or notices of
availability of the reports to service addresses. Where a system is
aware of a substantial number of bill-paying
[[Page 45997]]
consumers without access to electronic forms of the report, the system
should use one non-electronic form.'' While several commenters support
the EPA's addition of expanded good faith delivery methods, several
commenters also stated that systems should be encouraged, but not
required, to post their CCRs on social media and/or other online
services such as list-serves using resources that are routinely
available and reasonably achievable. Commenters stated that mandatory
requirements related to good faith delivery, such as mailing postcards,
would undercut the environmental and economic savings that have been
realized through electronic delivery and small and/or rural water
systems may not have the capacity to meet a requirement to post their
CCRs on social media and/or other online services such as list-serves.
A couple of commenters also stated that any efforts to reach non-bill
paying customers should be at the discretion of the utility to
customize delivery in a way that works for their customers. They stated
that a uniform requirement for delivery to ensure non-bill paying
customers receive the report would put unnecessary burdens on those
systems who already have a process in place by potentially requiring
those systems to adapt their current process to any new requirements. A
couple of commenters claimed that mailing post cards with QR codes to
apartments may not be feasible due to lack of addresses and may not be
effective because the QR codes require the extra step of scanning a QR
code and/or logging online for the full report. However, a couple of
commenters stated that the EPA should emphasize direct delivery to
single billed addresses serving multiple people such as apartments,
manufactured home communities and require bulk delivery of the report
to every address in the service area or, at minimum, require CWS to
send a post card to every address in their service area with a QR code
and website link for the report along with a stamped return card for
requesting a hard copy. Another commenter noted that under the existing
delivery requirments, CCRs are not being adequately delivered to all
consumers (i.e., renters, condo owners, residents of nursing homes,
etc.), which the commenter claims is a serious and widespread problem.
They specifically noted that the existing requirements for systems to
make a ``good faith effort'' to reach non-bill paying consumers is an
abject failure, because renters, condo owners, and residents of group
facilities such as nursing homes rarely, if ever, see these reports.
The EPA has determined that a requirement to mail non-bill paying
consumers either the report or a post card notifying them that the
report is available, would signficantly increase delivery costs. Also,
because water systems and utilities that serve their local communities
have the knowledge and understanding of which delivery methods would
work best for their communities, the EPA agrees that any good-faith
delivery methods from the expanded list in Sec. 144.155(b) used to
reach non-bill paying consumers should be at the discretion of the
utility. In addition, it would be anomolous for the CCR rule to allow
water sytems to forego direct delivery of hard copy CCRs or postcards
to bill paying customers, as allowed under 2013 CCR delivery options
memo and the AWIA amendments to SDWA while at the same time imposing a
new requirement for water systems to directly deliver paper copies of
the CCR or postcards notifying consumers of the availability of the
CCR.
3. Final Revisions
In this final rule, the EPA added the following examples of ``good
faith'' delivery methods to Sec. 144.155(b) for reaching non-bill
paying consumers: mailing reports or postcards with a link to the
report to all service addresses and/or postal customers; using an opt-
in notification system to send emails and/or texts with a link to the
report to interested consumers; advertising the availability of the
report on social media; publication in newsletters, posting a copy of
the report or notice of availability with links (or equivalent, such as
Quick Response (QR) codes) in public places; and holding a public
meeting to educate consumers on the reports. Systems must make a good
faith effort to reach consumers who do not get water bills, using means
recommended by the primacy agency. 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. The final rule also
includes additional recommendations in Sec. 144.155(b) for systems to
pay particular attention to consumers that are non-bill paying and may
have challenges with accessing the CCR when electronic delivery methods
are used. The provision states ``where a system is aware that it serves
a substantial number of non-bill paying consumers, the system is
encouraged to directly deliver the reports or notices of availability
of the reports to service addresses. Where a system is aware of a
substantial number of bill-paying consumers without access to
electronic forms of the report, the system should use at least one non-
electronic form.''
VI. Compliance Monitoring Data
A. CMD Reporting Requirement
1. Proposal
The EPA proposed a new regulatory requirement in Sec. 142.15
pursuant to sections 1445(a)(1)(A) and 1413(a)(3) of SDWA for states to
report CMD from PWS annually to the EPA for all NPDWRs.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
The EPA received many comments requesting that the EPA propose CMD
reporting requirements under a separate regulatory action based on
three major concerns. Commenters claimed that (1) CMD reporting
requirements are unrelated to the CCR Rule revisions; (2) a separate
rulemaking would allow the EPA to better explain its rationale for CMD
reporting requirements and the EPA's intended uses of the data; and (3)
combining the CMD reporting requirements with the CCR Rule revisions
may result in relevant and interested stakeholders not being aware of
the EPA's proposed new reporting requirements.
The EPA disagrees that revising state annual reporting requirements
to include CMD is unrelated to the CCR Rule revisions. In implementing
the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (2018
Evidence Act), the EPA identified as an initial focus area the
importance of data quality and reliability when determining compliance
with drinking water standards. The GAO raised similar concerns and
concluded that unreliable data from States were limiting the EPA's
ability to target enforcement priorities and communicate PWSs
performance (USGAO, 2011). GAO also concluded that the EPA should
ensure not only corrective action milestones, and violations, but also
water systems' test results, i.e., CMD, are current, accurate, and
complete (USGAO, 2006). AWIA amended SDWA section 1414--Enforcement of
Drinking Water Regulations with provisions to improve information on
drinking water. Section 2008 of AWIA amended SDWA section 1414(c)(4) on
Consumer Confidence Reports and section 2011 of AWIA created a new SDWA
section 1414(j)--Improved Accuracy and Availability of Compliance
Monitoring Data. This final rule improves the accuracy and availability
of drinking water data that the agency and the public receive to make
informed decisions and protect
[[Page 45998]]
public health. In addition, there is no statutory or regulatory
requirement to revise only one rule at a time, or to publish each rule
in separate Federal Register publications. The EPA often revises
multiple drinking water rules at the same time. For example, when
promulgating or revising a NPDWR for inclusion in 40 CFR part 141, the
EPA often revises the CCR rule in 40 CFR 141, subpart O and the Public
Notification Rule in 40 CFR part 141, subpart Q, as well as the primacy
requirements in 40 CFR part 142.
The EPA also disagrees that a separate rulemaking is necessary for
the EPA to explain its rationale and intended uses of CMD. The EPA has
described the rationale for the CMD reporting requirement (see section
I.E. of this preamble), the statutory basis for this regulatory action
(see section I.C. of this preamble), the agency's intended uses for the
data (see section I.E. of this preamble) and complied with all
applicable statutory requirements for this rule. The EPA notes that
some commenters requested that the CMD reporting requirement be a
separate rulemaking due to concerns that there was insufficient
discussion regarding the scope of the proposed provision, which stated
that the reporting requirement applied to both monitoring and related
data as well as records under Sec. 142.14. The EPA has considered
these comments and amended the scope of the final reporting requirement
after reassessing what data the agency requires for oversight in
addition to the data reporting and management capabilities of the EPA
and primacy agencies accordingly (see section II.B. of this preamble).
The EPA is also developing tools to facilitate the transmittal of CMD
to the EPA for both States that use SDWIS State and those that rely on
State-specific data management systems.
Lastly, the EPA disagrees with some commenters' concerns that
combining the CMD requirements with the CCR rule revisions may have
resulted in relevant and interested stakeholders not being aware that
the proposed CMD reporting requirement was included in the same Federal
Register publication. Prior to issuing the notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register, the EPA conducted a federalism
consultation as well as a supplemental Tribal consultation with the
Navajo Nation, the only Tribe with primary enforcement responsibilities
(see sections II.D and X.E of this preamble), and specifically
requested input on considerations regarding the proposed CMD reporting
requirement. The EPA considered both the comments received during the
consultations as well as public comments received on the proposed
rulemaking in developing the final rule.
3. Final Revisions
As a part of this final rule, the EPA is finalizing a requirement
in Sec. 142.15 for States with primacy to report CMD for all NPDWRs to
the EPA on an annual basis. ``CMD for all NPDWRs'' refers to CMD for
all NPDWRs for which the State receives data during the reporting time
period. This provision will not require any additional data collection
by water systems or States and does not change existing reporting
relationships between PWSs, laboratories, and States.
B. Scope and Administrative Burden of CMD Reporting
1. Proposal
The EPA proposed that States would be required to report both CMD
and related data including specified records kept by the State in Sec.
142.14.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
Several commenters expressed concern about the administrative and
financial burden that the proposed reporting requirement would entail.
Most commenters were concerned about the burden associated with
reporting specified records kept by the State in Sec. 142.14 to the
EPA. Several commenters expressed concern that the reporting
requirement would increase the burden on the States if the EPA used the
CMD to second-guess State decisions by necessitating additional staff
resources to resolve or defend compliance determinations. Several
commenters were concerned about the burden for both SDWIS-using and
non-SDWIS-using States to transmit their data to the EPA.
Many commenters expressed concern about the proposed scope of CMD
reported annually to the EPA, as well as ``data necessary for
determining compliance.'' The proposed rule also provided that
``related compliance data include specified records kept by the State
in Sec. 142.14.'' Commenters noted that specified records kept by the
States under Sec. 142.14 comprise nearly 120 different documents
specific to each PWS that cannot be readily digitized and stored in the
EPA and/or State databases. Commenters raised concerns over the
administrative burden associated with collating, digitizing, and
transmitting these documents to the EPA as well as the EPA's intentions
for collecting these documents.
The EPA carefully considered comments regarding State burden
associated with annual submission of records kept by States under Sec.
142.14. The EPA has also re-evaluated its own technical and
administrative capacity to collect, manage and use this volume of
records. Based on these considerations, the EPA has elected to remove
the annual reporting of ``specified records kept by the State under
Sec. 142.14'' from this final rule. Instead, the EPA will continue to
request certain case-specific records from case-specific States on an
as-needed basis using its existing authority under Sec. 142.14(g).
Many commenters expressed concern about the burden of reporting CMD
to the EPA on an annual basis. The EPA disagrees that this reporting
requirement will be unduly burdensome for the States. For States
currently using or in the process of transitioning to SDWIS State, the
EPA is developing a SDWIS State Annual Compliance Monitoring Data
Reporting Extraction Tool that will create a copy of the CMD from the
State's Microsoft SQL or Oracle database to submit directly to the EPA.
This tool builds off the EPA's existing SDWIS Data Extraction Tool that
42 states currently use to share a limited subset of CMD with the EPA
for the Six-year Review of Drinking Water Standards. The SDWIS Annual
Data Extraction Tool is intended to automate the data transfer process,
leveraging the suite of data quality checks and reviews built into the
SDWIS State software and submission to the EPA processes. Some
commenters noted that not every State with primacy uses SDWIS State to
maintain and track compliance of PWSs and thus that this new reporting
requirement will impose an undue burden on these States. For States
that do not use SDWIS State, the EPA intends to develop a process to
allow for these States to submit a full extraction of their CMD
database to the EPA, along with documentation that defines the data
elements in their database. The EPA is currently in the process of
developing the DW-SFTIES as the long-term replacement for SDWIS State.
DW-SFTIES will include an automated data extraction and reporting
feature. These processes, along with the reduction in scope of CMD to
be submitted to the EPA, will minimize the burden that this reporting
requirement will impose on the States.
3. Final Revisions
In this final rule, the EPA is requiring States to report
``compliance monitoring data and related monitoring data necessary for
determining compliance for all NPDWRs in 40 CFR part 141.''
``Compliance monitoring data'' comprises all sample results that PWSs
[[Page 45999]]
are already required to collect and report to primacy agencies for
purposes of determining compliance with NPDWRs, including MCL, MRDL,
and treatment technique (TT) requirements. Related monitoring data are
information about each sample result that must be reported to the
primacy agency for compliance determination, including data to ensure
that the correct number of samples were taken at the right time, in the
correct locations, and were analyzed using an approved analytical
method.
VII. Other Revisions
A. Housekeeping
1. Proposal
Included in the proposed revisions of the Consumer Confidence
Report Rule, the EPA identified minor technical corrections within
sections of 40 CFR part 141, subpart O, as described in this section:
40 CFR 141.152 Effective dates: The EPA proposed revisions to
language in CFR 141.152 Effective dates, by removing compliance dates
which have passed or are no longer applicable.
40 CFR 141.153 Content of the reports: The EPA proposed revisions
to 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.
40 CFR 141.154 Required additional health information: The EPA
proposed revisions to 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.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
The EPA received a few comments on suggested edits to the existing
CCR rule related to housekeeping revisions. One commenter identified
Sec. 141.154(e) for removal because it includes an outdated reference
to Sec. 141.12, which no longer exists in the CFR. The EPA agrees with
the suggestion to remove Sec. 141.154(e), as indicated in amendatory
instructions in the proposed rule (88 FR 20092 at 20113, April 5,
2023). A couple of the commenters recommended the EPA remove the
reference to the Safe Drinking Water Hotline. The EPA disagrees with
removing the hotline because SDWA section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires that
the regulations provide for a ``toll-free hotline that consumers can
call for more information and explanation.'' The EPA has included
additional options for contacting the agency though the website
<a href="http://epa.gov/safewater">epa.gov/safewater</a>.
3. Final Revisions
The EPA is finalizing minor technical corrections within sections
of 40 CFR part 141, subpart O as proposed. The minor technical
corrections will ensure consistency between the Consumer Confidence
Report Rule Revisions and existing the EPA drinking water regulations
by removing the out-of-date and no longer applicable text from the
regulations. The EPA is not creating any new obligations with these
technical corrections in Sec. Sec. 141.152, 141.153, and 141.154, that
included moving compliance dates which have passed or are no longer
applicable and removing regulatory text that has been superseded by new
or existing regulations. The EPA is adding a conforming edit to remove
Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(ii), consistent with removing Sec.
141.153(d)(1)(iii) that was included in the proposed revisions to the
rule. Both Sec. Sec. 141.153(d)(1)(iii) and 141.153(d)(3)(ii)
reference Sec. Sec. 141.142 and 141.143, which have been removed from
40 CFR part 141.
Rather than delete the Safe Drinking Water hotline in the
regulation text, the EPA has made editorial modifications to Sec. Sec.
141.153(e)(3), 141.153(h)(1)(iv), and 141.154(a), to add the agency's
website, <a href="http://epa.gov/safewater">epa.gov/safewater</a>, to provide CCR readers to an alternate
option for contacting the EPA.
In addition, the EPA is making conforming edits to 40 CFR part 141,
subpart O, appendix A to remove the table notes ``[dagger] Until March
31, 2016;'' ``[Dagger] Beginning April 1, 2016;'' and `` \1\ These
arsenic values are effective January 23, 2006. Until then, the MCL is
0.05 mg/L and there is no MCLG.'' For consistency, the table entries
for ``Total Coliform Bacteria [dagger]'' and ``Fecal coliform and E.
coli [dagger]'' have been deleted, and the ``Total Coliform Bacteria
[Dagger],'' ``E. coli [Dagger]'' and ``Arsenic (ppb)'' have been edited
to remove the symbols and note. The EPA has determined that these
footnotes and entries are outdated, and no longer effective, and is
deleting or editing them as described to reduce potential confusion for
States and water systems.
VIII. Rule Implementation and Enforcement
A. Compliance Date
1. Proposal
The EPA proposed compliance with the CCR Rule Revisions beginning
approximately one year after the expected publication date of the rule,
with CWSs complying with the new CCR content and delivery requirements
in Sec. Sec. 141.151 through 141.156 beginning April 1, 2025. The EPA
specifically requested 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. The EPA requested
comment on whether the agency should consider revising the compliance
dates in Sec. 141.152(a) to require compliance two years after
publication of the final rule for CWSs in States with primacy, or on
the date the State-adopted rule becomes effective, whichever comes
first while retaining a 2025 date for water systems where the EPA
directly implements the program.
The EPA proposed that the requirement for States to report CMD to
the EPA annually take effect in the CFR 30 days after publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register in 2024 and that States would be
required to comply with requirements for annual CMD reporting to the
EPA beginning one year after the effective date in 2025.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
A couple of commenters supported the proposed 2025 compliance
timeline for CWSs to comply with the CCR requirements while several
other commenters supported a compliance deadline two years from
promulgation for CWSs in States with primacy; however, many commenters
suggested an alternate compliance timeline of three years to be
consistent with compliance timeline of NPDWRs promulgated under SDWA
section 1412. The commenters identified needing additional time for
systems to comply with the revised CCR requirements to adapt their
report development and distribution process. Commenters highlighted
that the proposed compliance date in 2025 is before the allowed
timeframe for States to submit request for primacy enforcement
responsibility in Sec. 142.12(b). The commenters cited States needing
additional time to update their regulations, conduct appropriate
training, develop guidance, update business processes, update data
management systems, and adopt translation assistance efforts. Several
commenters highlighted that there are more than one concurrent drinking
water rulemakings that will likely have overlapping new or revised CCR
requirements. The commenters mentioned that States have limited
resources, and they anticipate it will require significant resources to
prepare for implementation, including
[[Page 46000]]
developing training and guidance, for multiple simultaneous new or
revised rules. Several commenters also recommended that compliance with
revised CCR requirements should begin at the beginning of the
compliance cycle (i.e., January 1), rather than April 1, as proposed.
They noted a compliance date such as the proposed compliance date of
April 1 could cause confusion for systems and States as to which set of
CCR rule requirements would apply (original or revised) for reports
delivered before April 1.
The EPA agrees with commenters' concerns regarding the benefit of
allowing additional time for systems and States to comply with the
final revised CCR Rule requirements. Under the proposed compliance
timeline of 2025, there is potential for confusion among States and
systems in identifying how to comply with both the existing State CCR
rules, which are based on the current CCR, or the revisions that would
be applicable under the Federal CCR prior to State adoption of revised
CCR regulations, which typically takes at least two years. The EPA also
recognizes the challenges States and systems will likely encounter with
implementing several new or revised regulations, including the Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) NPDWR, the LCRR, and the LCRI. In
anticipation of new or revised rule requirements, the EPA assumes
States will likely need to update their data systems, train staff, and
conduct outreach and training of water systems to educate them on new
requirements prior to compliance of the revised CCR rule compliance
date (USEPA, 2024a). There will be additional upfront activities that
will be needed to comply with the PFAS and LCRI rulemakings, and some
States may find it more effective to combine similar activities, such
as trainings, for more than one of the new or revised rules. Therefore,
in response to comments, the EPA is finalizing a compliance date for
systems of January 1, 2027. At that time, CWSs would be required to
meet the revised CCR rule requirements, meaning that reports delivered
in 2027, which summarize data collected in 2026, or earlier, will
reflect this final rule.
The EPA's requirements for primacy include the requirement that the
State have authority to require community water systems to provide CCRs
(Sec. 142.10(b)(6)(vii)). Each State, Tribe, or territory with primacy
must submit complete and final requests for the EPA approval of program
revisions to adopt the revised CCR no later than two years after
promulgation of this rule. Primacy agencies may request an extension of
up to two years in certain circumstances under Sec. 142.12.
Several commenters requested that the EPA delay the requirement for
States to submit CMD to the EPA beyond the proposed timeline of 2025
but did not provide a specific alternate timeline. The commenters
expressed concerns regarding the agency's readiness to collect, manage,
process, and use CMD by 2025. They also noted one year is insufficient
for States to develop the capacity to fulfill the requirement to
provide CMD. One commenter requested the EPA not delay the compliance
timeline. Lastly, a few commenters recommended the compliance timeline
for collecting CMD be delayed until the EPA updates its database
system, including incorporation into DW-SFTIES that is under
development.
The EPA agrees with commenters' concerns that States need
additional time to develop capacity to submit CMD to the EPA. This
extra time can be used to update State data systems to submit CMD to
the EPA on an annual basis. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing a
compliance date of May 24, 2027. The EPA also agrees the agency will
benefit from additional time to update data systems, develop extraction
tools, and to provide guidance to support implementation. The EPA
intends to engage stakeholders to identify best practices for publicly
displaying CMD following the promulgation of the final rule. The EPA
disagrees with comments recommending reporting of CMD be delayed until
DW-SFTIES is complete since that delay is unnecessary: prior to the
compliance date, the EPA will modify SDWIS FED to maintain the
collected CMD and will provide an enhanced CMD extraction and sharing
tool for primacy agencies that use the SDWIS State. Additionally, the
EPA will provide a database extraction option for the primacy agencies
that do not use SDWIS State.
3. Final Revisions
In response to comments, the EPA is finalizing a compliance date of
January 1, 2027, for the revised CCR rule. This means that reports
delivered in 2027 will need to meet the requirements in this final
rule. To reflect this change, the EPA has modified Sec. 141.152(a) to
reflect the revised compliance dates for all CWSs to develop and
provide CCRs to their customers according to the revised requirements
in subpart O.
To address the challenges and concerns by commenters regarding the
need for additional time for States and the EPA to prepare for the new
requirement to collect CMD, the final rule provides that compliance
with the CMD requirement will be required no earlier than May 24, 2027.
This means that States will be required to report CMD to the EPA
annually, on a specific schedule and in a format as prescribed by the
Administrator, no earlier than three years after the promulgation of
this final rule.
B. Special Primacy
1. Proposal
As previously discussed in section IV. A. of this preamble, the EPA
proposed requiring States with primacy to provide meaningful access to
CCRs for consumers with LEP. Primacy agencies would also be required to
maintain copies of translation support plans they receive from systems
serving 100,000 or more people for 5 years (Sec. 142.14(h)(2)). In
addition, even though the mailing waiver is not a new requirement, the
EPA proposed that States submit with their primacy application a
description of how the State implements the provisions in Sec.
141.155(g), along with a description of how the State intends to
provide water systems with technical assistance in meeting the
requirements in Sec. 141.153(h)(3) to provide translation assistance
in communities with a large proportion of consumers with limited
English proficiency (Sec. 142.16(f)(5)).
As discussed in section VI of this preamble, the EPA also proposed
requiring that States, territories, and Tribes with primacy over PWSs
submit CMD collected from the PWSs as a condition of primacy. The EPA
proposed revisions to the primacy requirements for annual reporting to
the EPA by States (Sec. 142.15) to include all monitoring and related
data necessary for determining compliance with existing NPDWRs as
required by 40 CFR part 141 to be reported by a water system to the
State to demonstrate compliance with NPDWRs.
2. Public Comment and the EPA's Response
Section IV.A.2. of this preamble discussed the EPA's response to
comments on translation support requirements by States and systems. A
few commenters requested clari[filig]cation on the roles and
responsibilities for water systems and the State for providing
translated reports and translation assistance, and suggested that the
regulation should include eligibility criteria to make clear when the
State would be responsible for translation services instead of a
system, since the proposed regulation would have required, as a
condition of primacy, that the State provide
[[Page 46001]]
translation support services when a system is unable to provide those
services. The EPA did not receive comment on the recordkeeping
requirements to maintain copies of the language access plans, or the
primacy application requirements to describe the small system mailing
waiver procedures.
3. Final Revisions
As described in section IV.A.3. of this preamble, the EPA is not
requiring States to provide translated reports or translation
assistance to consumers with LEP. Instead, the final rule clarifies the
role for water systems to provide translated reports or translation
assistance to their consumers if the system serves a large proportion
of consumers with LEP and the role for States to provide systems with
technical assistance. In Sec. 142.16(f)(5)(i), the EPA is requiring
the States' primacy application to include a description of how the
State intends to provide CWSs with technical assistance in meeting the
requirements in Sec. 141.153(h)(3) for providing translation
assistance in communities with a large proportion of consumers with
limited English proficiency. 40 CFR 142.14(h)(2) requires States to
keep a record of the language access plans submitted by systems serving
100,000 or more people for five years (see section IV. C. of this
preamble). Also, in Sec. 142.16(f)(5)(ii), primacy applications will
need to include a description of the State's procedures for issuing
small system mailing waivers consistent with Sec. 141.155(g). Section
VI. B. 3. of this preamble describes the final rule requirement for
States to report CMD to the EPA annually. The EPA is making technical
corrections to the numbering in Sec. 142.16(f). Special primacy
requirements proposed in Sec. 142.16(f)(4) have been renumbered to
Sec. 142.16(f)(5) because Sec. 142.16(f)(4) was inadvertently deleted
in the proposed rule. The EPA is not creating any new obligations in
Sec. 142.16(f)(4) with these technical corrections.
IX. Economic Analysis
A. Estimates of the Total Annualized Cost of the Final Rule Revisions
The EPA estimates the total average annual cost of this final
action would be $20 million. The estimated costs for the final CCR Rule
Revisions include those incurred by primacy agencies and community
water systems. The EPA categorized the costs into three categories:
program costs, CCR production costs, and CMD reporting costs. The EPA
discusses the expected costs as well as the assumptions and data
sources used in preparation of this estimate in the Economic Analysis
of the Final Revised Consumer Confidence Report Rule (USEPA, 2024a).
Estimated costs for this final rule (revised CCR Rule in 40 CFR
part 141 and the CMD requirement in 40 CFR part 142) are based on the
following assumptions about the 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 include language explaining their corrosion
control efforts and describe corrective actions they have taken to
address any lead ALE that occurred in the system during the reporting
period.
<bullet> Primacy agencies would report CMD to the EPA.
Exhibit 1 of this preamble details the EPA estimated annual average
national costs using a two percent discount rate by major cost
component. On November 9, 2023, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) issued an updated Circular No. A-4 on the development of
regulatory analysis as required under Executive Order 12866, that
became effective March 1, 2024. Consistent with OMB's updated guidance,
the annualized present value of the cost of the CCR Rule Revisions was
calculated at a 2 percent discount rate. These numbers transform future
anticipated costs associated with the final 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 the Final Revised CCR Rule at Two Percent Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community water
Cost component Primacy agencies systems Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Costs............................................. $2,956,899 $359,464 $3,316,363
CCR Cost.................................................. 828,159 15,544,891 16,373,049
Compliance Monitoring Data Reporting...................... 77,691 0 77,691
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 3,862,749 15,904,355 19,767,103
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional details regarding the EPA's cost assumptions and
estimates can be found in the Draft Information Collection Request
(ICR) (USEPA, 2024b), ICR Number 2764.02, 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 final rule, under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260.
B. Program and Administrative Costs for CCR and CMD
``Program costs'' refers to the actions primacy agencies will take
to adapt their respective CCR programs and CMD reporting activities.
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
activities to prepare for the new CCR and CMD reporting requirements.
The 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. The EPA
grouped primacy agencies into three categories based on the level of
support they provide in the development of CCRs.
<bullet> Category 1: Primacy agencies in this category do not
develop CCRs nor provide direct technical assistance to CWSs in support
of CCR development.
[[Page 46002]]
<bullet> Category 2: Primacy agencies in this category may fully or
partially develop CCRs for a small number of their CWSs, or they may
provide resources and technical assistance to all CWSs developing CCRs
themselves.
<bullet> Category 3: Primacy agencies in this category develop all
CCRs on behalf of their CWSs.
For reporting CMD, the EPA anticipates the upfront costs for
primacy agencies will depend on whether the primacy agency currently
uses SDWIS State. Those currently using SDWIS State will have a lower
level of effort burden than those that do not currently use SDWIS
State.
1. Upfront Costs
The EPA assumed each primacy agency must read and understand the
rule after promulgation. A primacy agency must also develop a primacy
revision package, update its reporting system, conduct preliminary data
analysis, and conduct start-up activities such as staff training and
outreach.
The EPA assumed 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.
Before complying with the new CMD reporting requirement, States
must adapt their existing reporting procedures or create a new
reporting procedure. These upfront costs include staff training,
setting up a reporting system for CMD, and formalizing procedures for
providing CMD to the EPA.
The EPA anticipates the upfront costs for CMD reporting will depend
on whether the primacy agency currently uses SDWIS State, and primacy
agencies that currently use SDWIS State will have a lower level of
effort burden than those that do not currently use SDWIS State. The EPA
anticipates primacy agencies will expend some effort to design and
develop procedures and workflows for managing data, develop support
documentation, and test and validate these procedures.
2. Ongoing Costs
After adopting the rule revision, primacy agencies 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. Since this is a revision to an
existing rule, the EPA assumed that primacy agencies will incur minimal
additional ongoing program administration costs. These costs will
consist only of compliance tracking, reporting, and enforcement
activities for the additional biannual CCRs required by the revised
rule. The EPA assumed primacy agencies already conduct other ongoing
program administration activities, such as staff training, under the
current CCR Rule and will not incur additional costs under the CCR Rule
Revisions for these activities.
The only system size to incur ongoing administrative costs will be
large systems serving 100,000 or more people. This is because these
systems must periodically research, adjust, and update their
translation plan to account for changing demographics, as well as
revise their plan to address feedback from the primacy agency. Other
administrative costs associated with activities all CWSs will conduct,
such as ongoing training, is assumed to be $0 because CWSs already
conduct ongoing staff training for the previous CCR rule, and general
staff training is not considered a new activity under the revised rule.
Primacy agencies will incur costs on an ongoing basis to annually
report CMD to the EPA. Specifically, each primacy agency will need
resources to maintain their reporting systems.
C. Revisions to Consumer Confidence Report Requirements Costs
The EPA estimated the costs to primacy agencies and CWSs to comply
with the rule revision. Although the CCR Rule applies to CWSs, the EPA
assumed some primacy agencies will continue to provide support and will
incur report development costs. The EPA anticipates all primacy
agencies will also incur additional enforcement and reporting costs for
the second CCR. The EPA assumed CWSs (and not primacy agencies) are
responsible for delivering reports, including those developed by the
primacy agency. ``CCR production costs'' refer to the burden that CWSs
and primacy agencies will incur because of content and delivery changes
that apply to CCRs. These changes include:
<bullet> Developing a brief report summary.
<bullet> Including language explaining their corrosion control
efforts and developing descriptions of corrective actions following an
ALE (if applicable) for the CCR.
<bullet> Providing a second CCR each year for CWSs serving 10,000
or more people.
<bullet> Posting CCR online for CWSs serving between 50,000 and
99,999 people.
<bullet> Good faith delivery efforts.
The EPA received a few comments on the costs of delivery of CCRs,
noting that for water systems, biannual delivery would increase the
costs associated with developing CCRs, as well as impose additional
burden. One commenter expressed concern with increased costs of
providing CCRs biannually, or twice per year, and stated that requiring
biannual delivery for systems would significantly increase the workload
of the staff responsible for tracking compliance with report deadlines
and content. Another commenter noted that the costs of ``good faith
delivery,'' such as publishing in local newspapers, were not accounted
for in the estimated costs. The EPA agrees that the costs for CWSs
serving 10,000 or more people will increase due to the requirement to
provide CCRs twice per year; however, the agency has incorporated costs
for the second delivery in the cost estimate, including ``good faith''
delivery. The EPA also anticipated that approximately 20 percent of the
CWSs serving 10,000 or more people would be required to provide a 6-
month update and has incorporated estimated costs to produce the 6-
month update. A couple of commenters provided suggested revised
estimates for postal rates, specifically noting that the costs vary
depending on the mail class. The EPA agrees that postal rates vary and
has updated the estimated postal rates to include a mix of mail
categories.
The EPA received several comments related to costs of translations.
A couple of commenters provided estimated translation costs and
expressed concern with the potentially burdensome costs for providing
translations. The EPA agrees that systems and States will incur costs
for translations and has estimated the costs of providing translation
access using a mix of translating reports or using a contracted
translation hotline. As indicated in section IV.A.2.of this preamble,
the EPA intends to provide translations for required content and
templates following the rule promulgation to reduce the burden in
developing CCRs for systems and States. The EPA made conservative
assumptions for the purposes of estimating costs of the final rule, by
including translation support costs of occasional use of a hotline and
developing translated material.
The EPA also received a couple of comments on the estimated costs
for primacy agencies. The commenters claimed that the EPA's Economic
Analysis did not properly estimate the costs to primacy agencies that
provide substantial support to CWSs in developing the CCRs, and they
noted
[[Page 46003]]
that the revisions will require those States to update their systems
and processes for the revised rule. The EPA disagrees that the cost
model does not incorporate costs for States providing support to CWSs
because the agency used information provided by the Association of
State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA, 2020) to assign each State
and their CWSs into three categories (see section IX.B of this
preamble). Program and CCR development costs were estimated for States
and systems using the three categories.
D. Compliance Monitoring Data (CMD) Requirement Costs
This final rule will require the 66 primacy agencies to report the
CMD for all NDPWRs to the EPA on an annual basis. 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). CMD comprises sample results and related
monitoring data for each NPDWR under 40 CFR part 141. Sample result
data are the values of all samples PWSs are required to collect and
report to primacy agencies for purposes of determining compliance with
MCLs, MRDL, or TT established in the NPDWRs. The related monitoring
data, or sample meta-data, represent several additional data elements,
already required to be reported, about each sample result including
sample location, collection date, and analytical method.
The EPA received several comments requesting clarification on the
scope of CMD required to be reported under the proposed rulemaking, and
the likely significant burden. See section VI.B. of this preamble for
the EPA's response to the comments associated with the scope of CMD
reported. After considering comments, EPA reduced the scope of the CMD
required to be reported. After consideration of comments received, the
EPA also revised the estimated costs of reporting CMD to account for
the various formats and amount of CMD the agency expects to receive.
E. Qualitative Benefits
The effects of the revisions to the CCR Rule are difficult to
quantify due to uncertainty of how many people read their CCRs and how
changes to the report will affect their actions and health. Therefore,
the EPA did not attempt to quantify how the CCR Rule Revisions will
change the ability of CWSs to meet health-based standards or what
reductions in morbidity or mortality will result. Instead, the EPA
described the type of benefits the revisions could generate.
The EPA anticipates the rule revision will help better inform the
public. This is because the rule revision will require CWSs to:
<bullet> Increase the frequency of CCR delivery (for systems
serving 10,000 or more people).
<bullet> Improve the methods of CCR delivery.
<bullet> Increase accessibility for consumers with limited English
proficiency.
<bullet> Improve the clarity of CCRs.
<bullet> Include additional health-relevant information in CCRs.
<bullet> In addition, the CMD annual reporting requirements will
allow for a better understanding of water system implementation of
drinking water regulations, which better informs the public and allows
the EPA and States to address public health issues more readily.
All these changes will lead to a more informed public. A more
informed consumer is better equipped to make decisions about their
health. In addition, a more informed public may be more likely to
provide input on water quality and engage with their local water system
and local decision-makers.
The EPA anticipates the primary benefit of the CCR Rule Revisions
will be an improvement to public health protection. The revised rule
will ensure consumers in all communities have accurate, timely, and
accessible drinking water data. This will allow consumers to make
educated decisions regarding any potential health risks pertaining to
the quality, treatment, and management of their drinking water supply.
The EPA anticipates the primary benefit of the final rule
requirements for States to submit to the EPA CMD for all NPDWRs will be
an improvement in the EPA's ability to fulfill its oversight
responsibilities under SDWA as a result of ready access to water system
compliance monitoring data. The EPA also anticipates that ready access
to CMD will provide benefits as a result of a more complete and
accurate understanding of trends in contaminant occurrence and water
system compliance. It will also support EPA's periodic reviews of
existing regulations, enable a more comprehensive approach to
identifying infrastructure needs, and inform the EPA and State
collaboration to deliver technical and funding assistance to water
systems that more effectively addresses underlying technical,
managerial, and financial capacity-building needs. The EPA also
anticipates benefits from an improved ability to provide more complete
and accurate information on compliance to Congress and the public,
consistent with GAO's recommendations (USGAO, 2011).
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was
therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866
review. The Economic Analysis of the Consumer Confidence Report Rule
Revisions (which includes costs associated with the CMD reporting
requirement) is available in the docket and is summarized in section
IX. of this preamble.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The
ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned the agency's ICR
number 2764.02. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The major information requirements concern CWS and primacy agency
activities to implement the rule including recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. This ICR provides preliminary burden and cost estimates
for the Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions and CMD reporting.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents/affected entities
are community water systems and States.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Under this 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
[[Page 46004]]
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 include 66
primacy agencies (50 States plus the District of Columbia, U.S.
territories, the EPA Regions conducting direct implementation of Tribal
primacy, and one Tribal nation), 49,424 are CWSs, for a total of 49,490
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 compliance date of 2027. Following
promulgation of the final rule, primacy agencies and CWs will conduct
upfront start up activities for the first two years. CWSs activities
will include reading guidance from their primacy agency, training
staff, and conducting background research for developing language
access plans (systems serving 100,000 or more people). For the first
two years of implementation, primacy agencies will become familiar with
the rule, prepare and submit primacy applications, update their
reporting systems, and conduct outreach and training for systems and
staff. Beginning in 2027, 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, 2027. Primacy agencies will be required to
submit comprehensive CMD to the EPA beginning in 2027.
Total estimated burden: 115,895 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $4.4 million (per year), includes $0 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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). The small entities subject to the requirements
of this action are 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 RFA, the
EPA proposed using this alternative definition in the Federal Register
(USEPA, 1998a), sought public comment, consulted with the Small
Business Administration, and finalized the small water system threshold
in the agency's CCR regulation (USEPA, 1998b). As stated in that final
rule, the alternative definition is applied to this final regulation.
The EPA has determined that of the approximately 45,000 small
entities serving fewer than 10,000 people, 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 the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (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 IX of this
preamble, the 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 million dollars. The EPA has determined that
this 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 CWSs.
However, the 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.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The EPA has determined that this action will have minor federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the State, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The EPA concluded that this rule may be of interest to State
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,
the 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. The 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 the
rulemaking.
In addition to input received during the meetings, the EPA provided
an opportunity for the public to provide 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 (EPA-HQ-
OW-2022-0260).
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 CCR Rule Revision would apply to all CWS and would require 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
[[Page 46005]]
that has primary enforcement authority (primacy) for PWSs on Tribal
lands.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011), the EPA consulted with Tribal
officials during the development of this action to gain an
understanding of Tribal views of potential revisions to 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 the 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 the EPA was June 14, 2022. The 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.
Preceding the conclusion of the initial Tribal consultation period,
the EPA began considering additional revisions that would expand the
scope of the CCR rulemaking 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. The EPA identified the Navajo Nation as the lone
Tribal government with primacy that would be subject to the primacy
requirement and offered supplemental consultation and coordination with
the Navajo Nation to discuss any potential impacts or concerns about
how the CMD submission requirement would affect the Navajo Nation. All
supplemental consultation and coordination processes were conducted in
accordance with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes. The supplemental Tribal consultation period was open
from August 30, 2022, through October 14, 2022. The 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 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 a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of 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
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, the 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 the EPA oversight
of PWSs by requiring the submittal of CMD.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This
action 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 State, territories, and Tribal agencies that are proposed
to be regulated by this rule already have electrical service. As such,
the 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
This rule does not involve technical standards. 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 with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Where available and
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards are not used by
the EPA, the Act requires the agency to provide Congress, through the
OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
Because this rule does not involve or require the use of any technical
standards, the EPA does not believe that this Act is applicable to this
rule. Moreover, the EPA is unaware of any voluntary consensus standards
relevant to this rule.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
Executive Order 12898 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. The 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 communities with EJ concerns.
The EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns by
increasing the availability of drinking water compliance data to the
public, improving delivery options of CCRs for non-bill paying
consumers and improving the ability of consumers with LEP to access
translation support 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 the need 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
[[Page 46006]]
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 the reports are not distributed to all community
members. At the National Drinking Water Advisory Council meeting on
September 30, 2021, members specifically expressed their concern about
non-bill paying customers not receiving the CCR (NDWAC, 2021).
The EPA is expanding the existing language in the rule at Sec.
144.155(b) for ``good faith'' delivery methods to include examples of
more modern outreach efforts, such as social media options.
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 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.'' LEP can be a barrier to accessing and
understanding the information presented in CCRs. If consumers with LEP
are not able to read and understand the reports, or have sufficient
access to that information, the value of the CCR is diminished and
raises equity concerns that consumers with LEP 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 LEP that lived in manufactured housing
communities had difficulties getting translation assistance with CCRs.
See revisions the EPA finalized to support consumers with LEP in
section IV of this preamble.
In developing this rule, the EPA provided meaningful involvement by
engaging with a variety of stakeholders to better understand and
address EJ concerns. This included interviewing an EJ organization and
a consumer protection organization (USEPA, 2022f). The NDWAC CCR Rule
Revisions working group consisted of twelve people from PWSs,
environmental groups, public interest groups, and Federal, State, and
Tribal agencies, including a member from the EPA's National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council. The 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 the EPA's commitment to EJ. In considering
revisions to the CCR Rule, the EPA reviewed comments from those
meetings related to notifications and CCRs, see section II.D of this
preamble for more information about stakeholder engagement. Additional
information on consultations and stakeholder engagement can be found in
the proposed rulemaking (88 FR 20092, April 5, 2023), and supporting
documents are included in the rule docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260).
The information supporting this Executive order review is contained
in section II. D. Consultations, and section IV. Translation Assistance
of this preamble and in the proposed rule (88 FR 20092, April 5, 2023),
and supporting documents are included in the rule docket (EPA-HQ-OW-
2022-0260).
The EPA anticipates the primary benefit of the final rule
requirements for State to submit to the EPA CMD for all NPDWRs will be
an improvement in the EPA's ability to fulfill its oversight
responsibilities under SDWA as a result of ready access to water system
compliance monitoring data. The EPA also anticipates that ready access
to CMD will provide benefits as a result of a more complete and
accurate understanding of trends in contaminant occurrence and water
system compliance. It will also support the EPA's periodic reviews of
existing regulations, enable a more comprehensive approach to
identifying infrastructure needs, and informing the EPA and state
collaboration to deliver technical and funding assistance to water
systems that more effectively addresses underlying technical,
managerial, and financial capacity-building needs. The EPA also
anticipates benefits from an improved ability to provide more complete
and accurate information on compliance to Congress and the public,
consistent with GAO's recommendations (USGAO, 2011).
K. Congressional Review Act
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
XI. Severability
The purpose of this section is to clarify the EPA's intent with
respect to the severability of provisions of this rule. If the
provision to report CMD is determined by judicial review or operation
of law to be invalid, the EPA intends that the partial invalidation
should not render any portion of the revisions to the CCR rule and
associated primacy requirements invalid. Moreover, if any provision or
interpretation in this final rule is determined by judicial review or
operation of law to be invalid, including provisions related to either
CMD or CCR, that partial invalidation should not render the remainder
of this final rule invalid.
XII. 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>.
Consent Decree Natural Resources Defense Council v. Michael Regan,
Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
et al., No. 21-cv-461 (S.D.N.Y. 7 Dec. 2021) (available at Docket
no. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0753).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). CDC clear
communication index: a tool for developing and assessing CDC public
communication products: user guide. <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/ccindex/index.html">https://www.cdc.gov/ccindex/index.html</a>.
NDWAC. (December 14, 2021). NDWAC recommen
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on May 24, 2024.
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.