National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence Reports, 45980-46014 [2024-10919]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://www.regulations.gov 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 https://www.regulations.gov.

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: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The EPA at 
[email protected] or visit the agency's website at: https://www.epa.gov/ccr/consumer-confidence-report-rule-revisions, 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: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-381.pdf 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 (https://www.epa.gov/tribal/consultation-tribes).
    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 
epa.gov/safewater.
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, epa.gov/safewater, 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:
     CWSs serving 10,000 or more persons would provide two 
reports per year.
     All reports would include a report summary.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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]]

     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.
     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:
     Developing a brief report summary.
     Including language explaining their corrosion control 
efforts and developing descriptions of corrective actions following an 
ALE (if applicable) for the CCR.
     Providing a second CCR each year for CWSs serving 10,000 
or more people.
     Posting CCR online for CWSs serving between 50,000 and 
99,999 people.
     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:
     Increase the frequency of CCR delivery (for systems 
serving 10,000 or more people).
     Improve the methods of CCR delivery.
     Increase accessibility for consumers with limited English 
proficiency.
     Improve the clarity of CCRs.
     Include additional health-relevant information in CCRs.
     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) https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/issue-153/house-section/article/H8184-4.
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. https://www.cdc.gov/ccindex/.
NDWAC. (December 14, 2021). NDWAC recommendations to the U.S 
Environmental Protection Agency on targeted issues related to 
revisions to the Consumer Confidence Report Rule.
Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Planning and Review. Federal 
Register 58(190). September 30, 1993. Washington, DC: Government 
Printing Office.
Executive Order 12898. Federal Action to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Federal 
Register 59(32):7629. February 16, 1994. Washington, DC: Government 
Printing Office.
Executive Order 13045. Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks. Federal Register 62(78):19885. April 
23, 1997. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Executive Order 13132. Federalism. Federal Register 64(153):43255. 
August 10, 1999. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

[[Page 46007]]

Executive Order 13175. Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments. Federal Register 65(218):67249. November 9, 
2000. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Executive Order 13211. Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. Federal 
Register 66(99):28355. May 22, 2001. Washington, DC: Government 
Printing Office.
Executive Order 13563. Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. 
Federal Register 76(14):3821. January 21, 2011. Washington, DC: 
Government Printing Office.
Executive Order 13990. Protecting Public Health and the Environment 
and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis. Federal Register 
86(14):7037. January 20. 2021. Washington, DC: Government Printing 
Office.
Executive Order 14094. Modernizing Regulatory Review. Federal 
Register 88(69):21879. April 11, 2023. Washington, DC: Government 
Printing Office.
Executive Order 14096. Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All. Federal Register 88(80):25251. April 
21, 2023. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, 
OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis (2023).
U.S. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Drinking Water System 
Improvement Act of 2017. (H. Rpt. 115-380). 2017. Washington: 
Government Printing Office, 2017. (Y1.1/8: 115-380).
United States. 2018. America's Water Infrastructure Act. Public Law 
115-270, 132 Stat. 3765, Title II (October 23, 2018).
United States. 2019. Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking 
Act. Public Law 115-435. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-115publ435/pdf/PLAW-115publ435.pdf.
United States. 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Public 
Law 117-58. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ58/pdf/PLAW-117publ58.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021a). American Housing Survey (AHS). Table 
Creator, available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive/ahstablecreator.html?s_areas=00000&s_year=2021&s_tablename=TABLE9&s_bygroup1=2&s_bygroup2=1&s_filtergroup1=1&s_filtergroup2=1.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021b). DP02: Selected Social Characteristics 
in the United States. U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American 
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available at: https://
data.census.gov/
table?t=Language+Spoken+at+Home&g=0100000US$1600000&tid=ACSDP5Y2020.D
P02.
USEPA. (1991). WSG 61A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Memorandum to Drinking Water/Groundwater Protection Branch Chiefs, 
Regions I-X, from Connie Bosma (signed by Ray Enyeart), Drinking 
Water Branch. Definitions of Types of Public Water Systems and 
Populations Served by Those Systems. (August 21, 1991).
USEPA. (1998a). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Consumer Confidence Reports; Proposed rule and notice of alternative 
definition. Federal Register. 63 FR 7606. February 13, 1998.
USEPA. (1998b). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Consumer Confidence Reports; Final rule. Federal Register. 63 FR 
44524. August 19, 1998.
USEPA. (2012). Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule Retrospective 
Review Summary (EPA Publication No. EPA 816-S-12-001). U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-05/documents/epa816s12004.pdf.
USEPA. (2013). WSG 189. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Memorandum to Water Division Directors, Regions I-X, from Peter 
Grevatt, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. Safe Drinking 
Water Act--Consumer Confidence Report Rule Delivery Options (January 
3, 2013).
USEPA. (2021a). Final Allotments for the FY2021 Public Water System 
Supervision (PWSS) State and Tribal Support Program Grants, from 
Catherine Davis, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. (March 2, 
2021).
USEPA. (2021). Lead and Copper Rule (LCRR) Virtual Engagements; 
Announcement of events; request for public comment. Federal 
Register. 86 FR 17571. April 5, 2021.
USEPA. (2021c). Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions 
Stakeholder Engagement: Summary of LCRR Engagement. Office of Water.
USEPA. (2021c). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead 
and Copper Rule Revisions; Final rule. Federal Register. 86 FR 4198. 
January 15, 2021.
USEPA (2021d). Proposed Consent Decree, Safe Drinking Water Act 
Claims. Federal Register. 86 FR 59383, October 17, 2021.
USEPA. (2022a). Drinking Water Compliance Monitoring Data Strategic 
Plan (EPA Publication No. EPA 810-R-19-002). U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency.
USEPA. (2022b). FY2022-FY2026 Strategic Plan. U. S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/fy-2022-2026-epa-strategic-plan.pdf.
USEPA. (2022c). Summary Report on Tribal Consultation: Consumer 
Confidence Report Rule Revisions. Office of Water.
USEPA. (2022d). Summary Report on Federalism: Consumer Confidence 
Report Rule Revisions. Office of Water.
USEPA. (2022e). Analysis of the Economic Impacts of the Proposed 
Consumer Confidence Reports Rule Revisions. Office of Water.
USEPA. (2022f). Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions 
Stakeholder Engagement: Interview Summary. Office of Water.
USEPA. (2022g). Draft Information Collection Request for the 
Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions and Compliance Monitoring 
Data Collection. Office of Water.
USEPA. (2022h). Final Allotments for the FY2022 Public Water System 
Supervision (PWSS) State and Tribal Support Program Grants, from 
Catherine Davis, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. (April 21, 
2022).
USEPA. (2023). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer 
Confidence Report Rule Revisions; Proposed Rule. Federal Register. 
88 FR 20092. April 5, 2023.
USEPA. (2024a). Economic Analysis of the Final Consumer Confidence 
Reports Rule Revisions. Office of Water.
USEPA. (2024b). Draft Information Collection Request for the final 
Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions and Compliance Monitoring 
Data Collection. Office of Water.
US GAO. (2006). Drinking Water: EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing 
Efforts to Ensure That Consumers Are Protected from Lead 
Contamination. (GAO publication No. GAO-06-148). U.S. Government 
Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-06-148.
US GAO. (2011). Drinking Water: Unreliable State Data Limit EPA's 
Ability to Target Enforcement Priorities and Communicate Water 
Systems' Performance. (GAO publication No. GAO-11-381). U.S. 
Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-11-381.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Copper, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental 
relations, Lead, Lead service line, National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Copper, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Lead service 
line, National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR 
parts 141 and 142 as follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

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


[[Page 46008]]


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


0
2. Amend Sec.  141.151 by revising paragraphs (a), (c), and the first 
sentence of paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  141.151  Purpose and applicability of this subpart.

    (a) This subpart establishes the minimum requirements for the 
content of reports that community water systems must deliver to their 
customers. These reports must contain information on the quality of the 
water delivered by the systems and characterize the risks (if any) from 
exposure to contaminants detected in the drinking water in an accurate 
and understandable manner. This subpart also includes requirements for 
systems serving more than 100,000 persons to develop and annually 
update a plan for providing assistance to consumers with limited 
English proficiency.
* * * * *
    (c) For the purpose of this subpart, customers are defined as 
billing units or service connections to which water is delivered by a 
community water system. For the purposes of this subpart, consumers are 
defined as people served by the water system, including customers, and 
people that do not receive a bill.
* * * * *
    (f) For purpose of this subpart, the term ``primacy agency'' refers 
to the State or Tribal government entity that has jurisdiction over, 
and primary enforcement responsibility for, public water systems, even 
if that government does not have interim or final primary enforcement 
responsibility for this part. * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  141.152 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) through (c) and 
(d)(1);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (d)(2) and adding ``; 
and'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(3).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  141.152  Compliance dates.

    (a) Between June 24, 2024, and December 31, 2026, community water 
systems must comply with Sec. Sec.  141.151 through 141.155, as 
codified in 40 CFR part 141, subpart O, on July 1, 2023. Beginning 
January 1, 2027, community water systems must comply with Sec. Sec.  
141.151 through 141.156.
    (b) Each existing community water system must deliver reports 
according to Sec.  141.155 by July 1 each year. Each report delivered 
by July 1 must contain data collected during the previous calendar 
year, or the most recent calendar year before the previous calendar 
year.
    (c) A new community water system must deliver its first report by 
July 1 of the year after its first full calendar year in operation.
    (d) * * *
    (1) By April 1, 2027, and annually thereafter; or
* * * * *
    (3) A community water system that sells water to another community 
water system that is required to provide reports biannually according 
to Sec.  141.155(i) must provide the applicable information required in 
Sec.  141.155(j) by October 1, 2027, to the buyer system, and annually 
thereafter, or a date mutually agreed upon by the seller and the 
purchaser, included in a contract between the parties.

0
4. Amend Sec.  141.153 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(1)(iii);
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(5);
0
d. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (d)(1)(i) and adding ``; 
and'' in its place;
0
e. Removing ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) and adding a 
period in its place;
0
f. Removing paragraph (d)(1)(iii);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3) introductory text, and (d)(3)(i);
0
h. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(3)(ii);
0
i. Revising and republishing paragraph (d)(4);
0
j. Revising paragraphs (d)(5) through (7);
0
k. Adding paragraph (d)(8);
0
l. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) introductory text and (e)(3) introductory 
text;
0
m. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(3); and
0
n. Revising and republishing paragraph (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  141.153  Content of the reports.

    (a) Each community water system must provide to its customers a 
report(s) that contains the information specified in this section, 
Sec.  141.154, and include a summary as specified in Sec.  141.156.
    (b) * * *
    (2) If a source water assessment has been completed, the report 
must notify consumers of the availability of this information, the year 
it was completed or most recently updated, and the means to obtain it. 
* * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Contaminant: Any physical, chemical, biological, or 
radiological substance or matter in water.
* * * * *
    (5) Systems must use the following definitions for the terms listed 
below if the terms are used in the report unless the system obtains 
written approval from the state to use an alternate definition:
    (i) Pesticide: Generally, any substance or mixture of substances 
intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.
    (ii) Herbicide: Any chemical(s) used to control undesirable 
vegetation.
    (d) * * *
    (2) The data relating to these contaminants must be presented in 
the reports in a manner that is clear and understandable for consumers. 
For example, the data may be displayed in one table or in several 
adjacent tables. Any additional monitoring results which a community 
water system chooses to include in its report must be displayed 
separately.
    (3) The data must be derived from data collected to comply with EPA 
and State monitoring and analytical requirements during the previous 
calendar year, or the most recent calendar year before the previous 
calendar year except that:
    (i) Where a system is allowed to monitor for regulated contaminants 
less often than once a year, the contaminant data section must include 
the date and results of the most recent sampling and the report must 
include a brief statement indicating that the data presented in the 
report are from the most recent testing done in accordance with the 
regulations. No data older than 5 years need be included.
* * * * *
    (4) For each detected regulated contaminant (listed in appendix A 
to this subpart), the contaminant data section(s) must contain:
    (i) The MCL for that contaminant expressed as a number equal to or 
greater than 1.0 (as provided in appendix A to this subpart);
    (ii) The MCLG for that contaminant expressed in the same units as 
the MCL;
    (iii) If there is no MCL for a detected contaminant, the 
contaminant data section(s) must indicate that there is a treatment 
technique, or specify the action level, applicable to that contaminant, 
and the report must include the definitions for treatment technique 
and/or action level, as appropriate, specified in paragraph (c)(3) of 
this section;
    (iv) For contaminants subject to an MCL, except turbidity and E. 
coli, the

[[Page 46009]]

contaminant data section(s) must contain the highest contaminant level 
used to determine compliance with an NPDWR and the range of detected 
levels, as follows:
    (A) When compliance with the MCL is determined annually or less 
frequently: The highest detected level at any sampling point and the 
range of detected levels expressed in the same units as the MCL.
    (B) When compliance with the MCL is determined by calculating a 
running annual average of all samples taken at a monitoring location: 
the highest average of any of the monitoring locations and the range of 
individual sample results for all monitoring locations expressed in the 
same units as the MCL. For the MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 in Sec.  
141.64(b)(2), systems must include the highest locational running 
annual average for TTHM and HAA5 and the range of individual sample 
results for all monitoring locations expressed in the same units as the 
MCL. If more than one location exceeds the TTHM or HAA5 MCL, the system 
must include the locational running annual averages for all locations 
that exceed the MCL.

    Note to paragraph (d)(4)(iv): When rounding of results to 
determine compliance with the MCL is allowed by the regulations, 
rounding should be done prior to multiplying the results by the 
factor listed in appendix A of this subpart.

    (v) For turbidity.
    (A) When it is reported pursuant to Sec.  141.13: The highest 
average monthly value.
    (B) When it is reported pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  
141.71: the highest monthly value. The report should include an 
explanation of the reasons for measuring turbidity.
    (C) When it is reported pursuant to Sec.  141.73 or Sec.  141.173 
or Sec.  141.551: the highest single measurement and the lowest monthly 
percentage of samples meeting the turbidity limits specified in Sec.  
141.73 or Sec.  141.173, or Sec.  141.551 for the filtration technology 
being used. The report should include an explanation of the reasons for 
measuring turbidity;
    (vi) For lead and copper: the 90th percentile concentration of the 
most recent round(s) of sampling, the number of sampling sites 
exceeding the action level, and the range of tap sampling results;
    (vii) [Reserved]
    (viii) [Reserved]
    (ix) The likely source(s) of detected contaminants to the best of 
the operator's knowledge. Specific information regarding contaminants 
may be available in sanitary surveys and source water assessments, and 
should be used when available to the operator. If the operator lacks 
specific information on the likely source, the report must include one 
or more of the typical sources for that contaminant listed in appendix 
A to this subpart that is most applicable to the system; and
    (x) For E. coli analytical results under subpart Y: The total 
number of E. coli positive samples;(5) If a community water system 
distributes water to its customers from multiple hydraulically 
independent distribution systems that are fed by different raw water 
sources, the contaminant data section(s) should differentiate 
contaminant data for each service area and the report should identify 
each separate distribution system. For example, if displayed in a 
table, it should contain a separate column for each service area. 
Alternatively, systems could produce separate reports tailored to 
include data for each service area.
    (6) The detected contaminant data section(s) must clearly identify 
any data indicating violations of MCLs, MRDLs, or treatment techniques, 
and the report must contain a clear and readily understandable 
explanation of the violation including: the length of the violation, 
the potential adverse health effects, and actions taken by the system 
to address the violation. To describe the potential health effects, the 
system must use the relevant language of appendix A to this subpart.
    (7) For detected unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is 
required, the reports must present the average and range at which the 
contaminant was detected. The report must include a brief explanation 
of the reasons for monitoring for unregulated contaminants such as:
    (i) Unregulated contaminant monitoring helps EPA to determine where 
certain contaminants occur and whether the Agency should consider 
regulating those contaminants in the future.
    (ii) May use an alternative educational statement in the CCR if 
approved by the Primacy Agency.
    (8) For systems that exceeded the lead action level in Sec.  
141.80(c), the detected contaminant data section must clearly identify 
the exceedance if any corrective action has been required by the 
Administrator or the State during the monitoring period covered by the 
report. The report must include a clear and readily understandable 
explanation of the exceedance, the steps consumers can take to reduce 
their exposure to lead in drinking water, and a description of any 
corrective actions the system has or will take to address the 
exceedance.
    (e) * * *
    (1) If the system has performed any monitoring for Cryptosporidium 
which indicates that Cryptosporidium may be present in the source water 
or the finished water, the report must include:
* * * * *
    (3) If the system has performed additional monitoring which 
indicates the presence of other contaminants in the finished water, EPA 
strongly encourages systems to report any results which may indicate a 
health concern. To determine if results may indicate a health concern, 
EPA recommends that systems find out if EPA has proposed an NPDWR or 
issued a health advisory for that contaminant by contacting the Agency 
by calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791) or an 
alternative method identified on the website epa.gov/safewater. EPA 
considers detects above a proposed MCL or health advisory level to 
indicate possible health concerns. For such contaminants, EPA 
recommends that the report include:
* * * * *
    (f) Compliance with NPDWR. In addition to the requirements of 
paragraph (d)(6) of this section, the report must note any violation 
that occurred during the period covered by the report of a requirement 
listed below, and include a clear and readily understandable 
explanation of the violation, any potential adverse health effects, and 
the steps the system has taken to correct the violation.
* * * * *
    (3) Lead and copper control requirements prescribed by subpart I of 
this part. For systems that fail to take one or more actions prescribed 
by Sec. Sec.  141.80(d), 141.81, 141.82, 141.83, 141.84, or 141.93, the 
report must include the applicable language of appendix A to this 
subpart for lead, copper, or both.
* * * * *
    (h) Additional information:
    (1) The report must contain a brief explanation regarding 
contaminants which may reasonably be expected to be found in drinking 
water including bottled water. This explanation may include the 
language of paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section or 
systems may use their own comparable language. The report also must 
include the language of paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (i) Both tap water and bottled water come from rivers, lakes, 
streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over 
the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally 
occurring minerals and, in

[[Page 46010]]

some cases, radioactive material. The water can also pick up and 
transport substances resulting from the presence of animals or from 
human activity. These substances are also called contaminants.
    (ii) Contaminants are any physical, chemical, biological, or 
radiological substance or matter in water. Contaminants that may be 
present in source water include:
    (A) Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, which may 
come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural 
livestock operations, and wildlife.
    (B) Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can 
occur naturally in the soil or groundwater or may result from urban 
stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil 
and gas production, mining, or farming.
    (C) Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of 
sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential 
uses.
    (D) Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile 
organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes and 
petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban 
stormwater runoff, and septic systems.
    (E) Radioactive contaminants, which can occur naturally or be the 
result of oil and gas production and mining activities.
    (iii) To protect public health, the Environmental Protection Agency 
prescribes regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants 
in tap water provided by public water systems. The Food and Drug 
Administration regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled 
water which must provide the same protection for public health.
    (iv) Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be 
expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The 
presence of contaminants does not necessarily mean that water poses a 
health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health 
effects can be obtained by contacting the Environmental Protection 
Agency by calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791) or 
visiting the website epa.gov/safewater.
    (2) The report must include the telephone number of the owner, 
operator, or designee of the community water system as a source of 
additional information concerning the report. If a system uses a 
website or social media to share additional information, EPA recommends 
including information about how to access such media platforms in the 
report.
    (3) In communities with a large proportion of consumers with 
limited English proficiency, as determined by the Primacy Agency, the 
report must contain information in the appropriate language(s) 
regarding the importance of the report and 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).
    (4) The report must include information (e.g., time and place of 
regularly scheduled board meetings) about opportunities for public 
participation in decisions that may affect the quality of the water.
    (5) The systems may include such additional information as they 
deem necessary for public education consistent with, and not detracting 
from, the purpose of the report.
    (6) Systems required to comply with subpart S of this part.
    (i) Any ground water system that receives notice from the State of 
a significant deficiency or notice from a laboratory of a fecal 
indicator-positive ground water source sample that is not invalidated 
by the State under Sec.  141.402(d) must inform its customers of any 
significant deficiency that is uncorrected at the time of the next 
reporting period or of any fecal indicator-positive ground water source 
sample in the next report or 6-month update according to Sec.  141.155. 
The system must continue to inform the public annually until the State 
determines that particular significant deficiency is corrected or the 
fecal contamination in the ground water source is addressed under Sec.  
141.403(a). Each report must include the following elements:
    (A) The nature of the particular significant deficiency or the 
source of the fecal contamination (if the source is known) and the date 
the significant deficiency was identified by the State or the dates of 
the fecal indicator-positive ground water source samples;
    (B) If the fecal contamination in the ground water source has been 
addressed under Sec.  141.403(a) and the date of such action;
    (C) For each significant deficiency or fecal contamination in the 
ground water source that has not been addressed under Sec.  141.403(a), 
the State-approved plan and schedule for correction, including interim 
measures, progress to date, and any interim measures completed; and
    (D) If the system receives notice of a fecal indicator-positive 
ground water source sample that is not invalidated by the State under 
Sec.  141.402(d), the potential health effects using the health effects 
language of appendix A to this subpart.
    (ii) If directed by the State, a system with significant 
deficiencies that have been corrected before the next report is issued 
must inform its customers of the significant deficiency, how the 
deficiency was corrected, and the date of correction under paragraph 
(h)(6)(i) of this section.
    (7) Systems required to comply with subpart Y of this part.
    (i) Any system required to comply with the Level 1 assessment 
requirement or a Level 2 assessment requirement that is not due to an 
E. coli MCL violation must include in the report the text found in 
paragraphs (h)(7)(i)(A) through (C) of this section as appropriate, 
filling in the blanks accordingly and the text found in paragraphs 
(h)(7)(i)(D)(1) and (2) of this section if appropriate. Systems may use 
an alternative statement with equivalent information for paragraphs 
(h)(7)(i)(B) and (C) of this section if approved by the primacy agency.
    (A) Coliforms are bacteria that occur naturally in the environment 
and are used as an indicator that other, potentially harmful, 
waterborne organisms may be present or that a potential pathway exists 
through which contamination may enter the drinking water distribution 
system. We found coliforms indicating the need to look for potential 
problems in water treatment or distribution. When this occurs, we are 
required to conduct assessment(s) to identify problems and to correct 
any problems that were found during these assessments.
    (B) Because we found coliforms during sampling, we were required to 
conduct [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENTS] assessment(s) of the 
system, also known as a Level 1 assessment, to identify possible 
sources of contamination. [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENTS] Level 
1 assessment(s) were completed. In addition, we were required to take 
[INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] corrective actions and we 
completed [INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] of these actions.
    (C) Because we found coliforms during sampling, we were required to 
conduct [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS] detailed assessments, 
also known as a Level 2 assessment, to identify possible sources of 
contamination. [INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS] Level 2 
assessments were completed. In

[[Page 46011]]

addition, we were required to take [INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE 
ACTIONS] corrective actions and we completed [INSERT NUMBER OF 
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] of these actions.
    (D) Any system that has failed to complete all the required 
assessments or correct all identified sanitary defects, is in violation 
of the treatment technique requirement and must also include one or 
both of the following statements, as appropriate:
    (1) During the past year we failed to conduct all the required 
assessment(s).
    (2) During the past year we failed to correct all identified 
defects that were found during the assessment.
    (ii) Any system required to conduct a Level 2 assessment due to an 
E. coli MCL violation must include in the report the text found in 
paragraphs (h)(7)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section, and health effects 
language in appendix A to this subpart, filling in the blanks 
accordingly and the text found in paragraphs (h)(7)(ii)(C)(1) and (2) 
of this section, if appropriate. Systems may use an alternative 
statement with equivalent information for paragraphs (h)(7)(ii)(A) 
through (C) of this section, if approved by the primacy agency.
    (A) We found E. coli bacteria, indicating the need to look for 
potential problems in water treatment or distribution. When this 
occurs, we are required to conduct assessment(s), also known as a Level 
2 assessment, to identify problems and to correct any problems that 
were found during these assessments.
    (B) We were required to complete a detailed assessment of our water 
system, also known as a Level 2 assessment, because we found E. coli in 
our water system. In addition, we were required to take [INSERT NUMBER 
OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] corrective actions and we completed [INSERT 
NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] of these actions.
    (C) Any system that has failed to complete the required assessment 
or correct all identified sanitary defects, is in violation of the 
treatment technique requirement and must also include one or both of 
the following statements, as appropriate:
    (1) We failed to conduct the required assessment.
    (2) We failed to correct all defects that were identified during 
the assessment that we conducted.
    (iii) If a system detects E. coli and has violated the E. coli MCL, 
in addition to completing the table as required in paragraph (d)(4) of 
this section, the system must include one or more of the following 
statements to describe any noncompliance, as applicable:
    (A) We had an E. coli-positive repeat sample following a total 
coliform-positive routine sample.
    (B) We had a total coliform-positive repeat sample following an E. 
coli-positive routine sample.
    (C) We failed to take all required repeat samples following an E. 
coli-positive routine sample.
    (D) We failed to test for E. coli when any repeat sample tested 
positive for total coliform.
    (iv) If a system detects E. coli and has not violated the E. coli 
MCL, in addition to completing the table as required in paragraph 
(d)(4) of this section, the system may include a statement that 
explains that although they have detected E. coli, they are not in 
violation of the E. coli MCL.
    (8) Systems required to comply with subpart I of this part.
    (i) The report must notify consumers that complete lead tap 
sampling data are available for review and must include information on 
how to access the data.
    (ii) The report must include a statement that a service line 
inventory (including inventories consisting only of a statement that 
there are no lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service lines) has been prepared and include instructions to 
access the publicly available service line inventory. If the service 
line inventory is available online, the report must include the direct 
link to the inventory.
    (iii) The report must contain a plainly worded explanation of the 
corrosion control efforts the system is taking in accordance with 
subpart I of this part. Corrosion control efforts consist of treatment 
(e.g., pH adjustment, alkalinity adjustment, or corrosion inhibitor 
addition) and other efforts contributing to the control of the 
corrosivity of water, e.g., monitoring to assess the corrosivity of 
water. The system may use one of the following templates or use their 
own explanation that includes equivalent information.
    (A) For systems with state or EPA-designated Optimal Corrosion 
Control Treatment:
    (1) Corrosion of pipes, plumbing fittings and fixtures may cause 
lead and copper to enter drinking water. To assess corrosion of lead 
and copper, [name of system] conducts tap sampling for lead and copper 
at selected sites [insert frequency at which system conducts tap 
sampling]. [Name of system] treats water using [identify treatment 
method] to control corrosion, which was designated as the optimal 
corrosion control treatment by [the state or EPA, as applicable]. To 
ensure the treatment is operating effectively, [name of system] 
monitors water quality parameters set by the [state or EPA, as 
applicable] [insert frequency at which system conducts water quality 
parameter monitoring].
    (2) If applicable add: [Name of system] is currently conducting a 
study of corrosion control to determine if any changes to treatment 
methods are needed to minimize the corrosivity of the water.
    (B) For systems without state or EPA designated Optimal Corrosion 
Control Treatment:
    (1) Corrosion of pipes, plumbing fittings and fixtures may cause 
metals, including lead and copper, to enter drinking water. To assess 
corrosion of lead and copper, [name of system] conducts tap sampling 
for lead and copper at selected sites [insert frequency at which system 
conducts tap sampling].
    (2) If applicable, add: [Name of system] treats water using 
[identify treatment method] to control corrosion.
    (3) If applicable add: [Name of system] is currently conducting a 
study of corrosion control to determine if any changes to treatment 
methods are needed to minimize the corrosivity of the water.

0
5. Amend Sec.  141.154 by:
0
a. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1) and (2), and (d)(2); and
0
c. Removing paragraphs (e) and (f).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  141.154  Required additional health information.

    (a) * * * EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the 
risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants 
are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791) or on 
EPA's website epa.gov/safewater.
    (b) A system that detects arsenic above 0.005 mg/L and up to and 
including 0.010 mg/L:
    (1) Must include in its report a short informational statement 
about arsenic, using language such as: Arsenic is known to cause cancer 
in humans. Arsenic also may cause other health effects such as skin 
damage and circulatory problems. [NAME OF UTILITY] meets the EPA 
arsenic drinking water standard, also known as a Maximum Contaminant 
Level (MCL). However, you should know that EPA's MCL for arsenic 
balances the scientific community's understanding of arsenic-related 
health effects and the cost of removing arsenic from drinking water.

[[Page 46012]]

The highest concentration of arsenic found in [YEAR] was [INSERT MAX 
ARSENIC LEVEL per Sec.  141.153(d)(4)(iv)] ppb.
    (2) May use an alternative educational statement in the CCR if 
approved by the Primacy Agency.
    (c) * * *
    (1) Must include a short informational statement about the impacts 
of nitrate on children using language such as: Even though [NAME OF 
UTILITY] meets the EPA nitrate drinking water standard, also known as a 
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), if you are caring for an infant and 
using tap water to prepare formula, you may want to use alternate 
sources of water or ask for advice from your health care provider. 
Nitrate levels above 10 ppm pose a particularly high health concern for 
infants under 6 months of age and can interfere with the capacity of 
the infant's blood to carry oxygen, resulting in a serious illness. 
Symptoms of serious illness include shortness of breath and blueness of 
the skin, known as ``blue baby syndrome.'' Nitrate levels in drinking 
water can increase for short periods of time due to high levels of 
rainfall or agricultural activity, therefore we test for nitrate 
[INSERT APPLICABLE SAMPLING FREQUENCY]. The highest level for nitrate 
found during [YEAR] was [INSERT MAX NITRATE LEVEL per Sec.  
141.153(d)(4)(iv)] ppm.
    (2) May use an alternative educational statement in the CCR if 
approved by the Primacy Agency.
    (d) * * *
    (2) May use an alternative educational statement in the CCR if 
approved by the Primacy Agency.

0
6. Amend Sec.  141.155 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading:
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) through (c), (e), and (f);
0
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (g) introductory text, and 
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(2); and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  141.155  Report delivery, reporting, and recordkeeping.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each 
community water system must directly deliver a copy of the report to 
each customer.
    (1) Systems must use at a minimum, one of the following forms of 
delivery:
    (i) Mail or hand deliver a paper copy of the report;
    (ii) Mail a notification that the report is available on a website 
via a direct link;
    (iii) Email a direct link or electronic version of the report; or
    (iv) Another direct delivery method approved in writing by the 
primacy agency.
    (2) Systems using electronic delivery methods in paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section must provide a paper copy of 
the report to any customer upon request. The notification method must 
prominently display directions for requesting such copy.
    (3) For systems that choose to electronically deliver the reports 
by posting the report to a website and providing a notification either 
by mail or email:
    (i) The report must be publicly available on the website at time 
notification is made;
    (ii) Notifications must prominently display the link and include an 
explanation of the nature of the link; and
    (iii) Systems may use a web page to convey the information required 
in Sec. Sec.  141.153, 141.154, and 141.156.
    (4) Systems that use a publicly available website to provide 
reports must maintain public access to the report for no less than 3 
years.
    (b) The system must make a good faith effort to reach consumers who 
do not get water bills, using means recommended by the primacy agency. 
EPA expects that an adequate good faith effort will be tailored to the 
consumers who are served by the system but are not bill-paying 
customers, such as renters or workers. A good faith effort to reach 
consumers includes a mix of methods to reach the broadest possible 
range of persons served by the water system such as, but not limited 
to: Posting the reports on the internet; mailing reports or postcards 
with links to the reports to all service addresses and/or postal 
customers; using an opt in notification system to send emails and/or 
texts with links to the reports to interested consumers; advertising 
the availability of the report in the news media and on social media; 
publication in a local newspaper or newsletter; posting a copy of the 
report or notice of availability with links (or equivalent, such as 
Quick Response (QR) codes) in public places such as cafeterias or lunch 
rooms of public buildings; delivery of multiple copies for distribution 
by single-biller customers such as apartment buildings or large private 
employers; delivery to community organizations; holding a public 
meeting to educate consumers on the reports.
    (i) 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.
    (ii) 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 of delivery.
    (c) No later than 10 days after the date the system is required to 
distribute the report to its customers, each community water system 
must provide a copy of the report to the primacy agency and a 
certification that the report(s) has/have been distributed to 
customers, and that the information is correct and consistent with the 
compliance monitoring data previously submitted to the primacy agency.
* * * * *
    (e) Each community water system must make its reports available to 
the public upon request. Systems should make a reasonable effort to 
provide the reports in an accessible format to anyone who requests an 
accommodation.
    (f) Each community water system serving 50,000 or more persons must 
post its current year's report to a publicly-accessible site on the 
internet.
    (g) The Governor of a State or their designee, or the Tribal Leader 
where the Tribe has met the eligibility requirements contained in Sec.  
142.72 for the purposes of waiving the mailing requirement, can waive 
the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section for community water 
systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons. * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Publish the reports in one or more local newspapers or on one 
or more local online news sites serving the area in which the system is 
located;
* * * * *
    (2) Systems serving 500 or fewer persons may forego the 
requirements of paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section if they 
provide notice that the report is available upon request at least once 
per year to their customers by mail, door-to-door delivery or by 
posting in one or more locations where persons served by the system can 
reasonably be expected to see it.
* * * * *
    (i) Systems serving 100,000 or more persons, must develop a plan 
for providing 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. The first plan must 
be provided to the state with the first report in 2027. Plans must be 
evaluated annually and updated as necessary and reported with the

[[Page 46013]]

certification required in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (j) Delivery timing and biannual delivery:
    (1) Each community water system must distribute reports by July 1 
each year. Each report distributed by July 1 must use data collected 
during, or prior to, the previous calendar year using methods described 
in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (2) Each community water system serving 10,000 or more persons must 
distribute the report biannually, or twice per calendar year, by 
December 31 using methods described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) Systems required to comply with paragraph (j)(2) of this 
section, with a violation or action level exceedance that occurred 
between January 1 and June 30 of the current year, or have received 
monitoring results from required monitoring under the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Rule in Sec.  141.40, must include a 6-month 
update with the second report with the following:
    (i) A short description of the nature of the 6-month update and the 
biannual delivery.
    (ii) If a system receives an MCL, MRDL, or treatment technique 
violation, the 6-month update must include the applicable contaminant 
section information in Sec.  141.153(d)(4), and a readily 
understandable explanation of the violation including: the length of 
the violation, the potential adverse health effects, actions taken by 
the system to address the violation, and timeframe the system expects 
to complete those actions. To describe the potential health effects, 
the system must use the relevant language of appendix A to this 
subpart.
    (iii) If a system receives any other violation, the 6-month update 
must include the information in Sec.  141.153(f).
    (iv) If a system exceeded the lead action level following 
monitoring conducted between January 1 and June 30 of the current year, 
the system must include information identified in Sec.  
141.153(d)(4)(vi) and (d)(8).
    (v) For systems monitoring under Sec.  141.40 that become aware of 
results for samples collected during the reporting year but were not 
included in the reports distributed by July 1, the system must include 
information as required by Sec.  141.153(d)(7).

0
7. Add Sec.  141.156 to read as follows:


Sec.  141.156  Summary of report contents.

    (a) Each report must include a summary displayed prominently at the 
beginning of the report, including a brief description of the nature of 
the report.
    (b) Systems must include, at a minimum, the following information 
in the summary:
    (1) Summary of violations and compliance information included in 
the report required by Sec.  141.153(d)(6) and (8), (f), and (h)(6) and 
(7).
    (2) Contact information for owner, operator, or designee of the 
community water system as a source of additional information concerning 
the report, per Sec.  141.153(h)(2).
    (c) If applicable, systems must include the following in the 
summary:
    (1) For systems using delivery methods in Sec.  141.155(a)(1)(ii), 
(iii), or (iv), the summary must include directions for consumers to 
request a paper copy of the report, as described in Sec.  
141.155(a)(2).
    (2) For systems subject to Sec.  141.153(h)(3) because they serve a 
large proportion of consumers with limited English proficiency, the 
summary must include information where consumers may obtain a 
translated copy of the report, or get assistance in the appropriate 
language(s).
    (3) For systems using the report to also meet the public 
notification requirements of subpart Q of this part, the summary must 
specify that it is also serving to provide public notification of one 
or more violations or situations, provide a brief statement about the 
nature of the notice(s), and a brief description of how to locate the 
notice(s) in the report.
    (d) The summary should be written in plain language and may use 
infographics.
    (e) For those systems required to include a 6-month update with the 
second report under Sec.  141.155(j)(2), the summary should include a 
brief description of the nature of the report and update, noting the 
availability of new information for the current year (between January 
and June).
    (f) The report summary must include the following standard language 
to encourage the distribution of the report to all persons served:

    Please share this information with anyone who drinks this water 
(or their guardians), especially those who may not have received 
this report directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing 
homes, schools, and businesses). You can do this by posting this 
report in a public place or distributing copies by hand, mail, 
email, or another method.

0
8. Amend appendix A to subpart O by:
0
a. Removing the entries for ``Total Coliform Bacteria [dagger]'' and 
``Total Coliform Bacteria [Dagger]'';
0
b. Adding the entry for ``Total Coliform Bacteria'' under 
``Microbiological contaminants'';
0
c. Removing the entry for ``Fecal coliform and E. coli [dagger]'';
0
d. Revising the entries for ``E. coli [Dagger]''and ``Arsenic (ppb)''; 
and
0
e. Removing footnotes [dagger], [Dagger], and 1.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart O of Part 141--Regulated Contaminants

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              To convert
        Contaminant (units)          Traditional MCL in mg/    for CCR,      MCL in CCR units       MCLG       Major sources in        Health effects
                                                L            multiply by                                        drinking water            language
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbiological contaminants:
    Total Coliform Bacteria........  TT....................  ...........  TT....................  ........  N/A..................  Use language found in
                                                                                                                                    Sec.
                                                                                                                                    141.153(h)(7)(i)(A).

[[Page 46014]]

 
E. coli............................  Routine and repeat      ...........  Routine and repeat             0  Human and animal       E. coli are bacteria
                                      samples are total                    samples are total                 fecal waste.           whose presence
                                      coliform-positive and                coliform-positive and                                    indicates that the
                                      either is E. coli-                   either is E. coli-                                       water may be
                                      positive or system                   positive or system                                       contaminated with
                                      fails to take repeat                 fails to take repeat                                     human or animal
                                      samples following E.                 samples following E.                                     wastes. Human
                                      coli-positive routine                coli-positive routine                                    pathogens in these
                                      sample or system                     sample or system                                         wastes can cause
                                      fails to analyze                     fails to analyze                                         short-term effects,
                                      total coliform-                      total coliform-                                          such as diarrhea,
                                      positive repeat                      positive repeat                                          cramps, nausea,
                                      sample for E. coli.                  sample for E. coli.                                      headaches, or other
                                                                                                                                    symptoms. They may
                                                                                                                                    pose a greater
                                                                                                                                    health risk for
                                                                                                                                    infants, young
                                                                                                                                    children, the
                                                                                                                                    elderly, and people
                                                                                                                                    with severely-
                                                                                                                                    compromised immune
                                                                                                                                    systems.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Arsenic (ppb)......................  0.010.................         1000  10....................         0  Erosion of natural     Some people who drink
                                                                                                             deposits; Runoff       water containing
                                                                                                             from orchards;         arsenic in excess of
                                                                                                             Runoff from glass      the MCL over many
                                                                                                             and electronics        years could
                                                                                                             production wastes.     experience skin
                                                                                                                                    damage or problems
                                                                                                                                    with their
                                                                                                                                    circulatory system,
                                                                                                                                    and may have an
                                                                                                                                    increased risk of
                                                                                                                                    getting cancer.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
IMPLEMENTATION

0
9. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:

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

0
10. Amend Sec.  142.14 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  142.14  Records kept by States.

* * * * *
    (h) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must 
maintain the following records under subpart O of this part:
    (1) A copy of the consumer confidence reports for a period of one 
year and the certifications obtained pursuant to 40 CFR 141.155(c) for 
a period of 5 years.
    (2) A copy of the plans submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 141.155(i) for 
a period of 5 years.

0
11. Amend Sec.  142.15 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Removing the period at the end of the paragraph (b)(2) and adding 
``; and'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(3).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  142.15  Reports by States.

* * * * *
    (b) Each State which has primary enforcement responsibility must 
submit annual reports to the Administrator on a schedule and in a 
format prescribed by the Administrator, consisting of the following 
information:
* * * * *
    (3) No earlier than May 24, 2027, compliance monitoring data and 
related monitoring data necessary for determining compliance for all 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) in 40 CFR part 
141.
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  142.16 by revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (3), and 
adding paragraph (f)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  142.16  Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must 
adopt the revised requirements of 40 CFR part 141, subpart O no later 
than May 25, 2026. States must submit revised programs to EPA for 
approval using the procedures in Sec.  142.12(b) through (d).
* * * * *
    (3) Each State must, as a condition of primacy, provide water 
systems with technical assistance in meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 
141.153(h)(3) to provide translation assistance to consumers with 
limited English proficiency. 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 through a website.
* * * * *
    (5) Each application for approval of a revised program must 
include:
    (i) A description of how the State intends to provide water systems 
with technical assistance in meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 
141.153(h)(3) to provide translation assistance in communities with a 
large proportion of consumers with limited English proficiency; and
    (ii) A description of the state's procedures for waiving the 
mailing requirement for small systems consistent with 40 CFR 
141.155(g).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-10919 Filed 5-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P