The Final CCR Rule: Words Matter

On May 15, 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the final Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule Revisions, and it was formally published in the Federal Register a few weeks later (89 FR 45980). After a long process, including a National Drinking Water Advisory Council Workgroup and a 2023 proposal and comment period, the final rule provides a clear path to making changes required by America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA). AWWA, individual sections, and many members engaged in these efforts throughout the multiyear development of the final rule.

As finalized, the rule sets new implementable requirements inherent to the statutory language of AWIA. This is truly a case in which words matter. While achievable, systems and states will need to update and implement new processes, but by carefully listening to and acting on stakeholder feedback, EPA's decisions avoided some potentially very challenging situations.

Section 2008 of AWIA specifies that water systems serving at least 10,000 people provide their CCR at least twice per year. The concept of provide is essential here. Stakeholders suggested a broad variety of recommendations to EPA on this point, ranging from releasing exactly the same CCR twice in a year to trying to split the annual CCR into six-month increments. Having two totally different reports would be like trying to split your tax return into two half-year tax returns. EPA balanced stakeholder interest in updating CCRs in a timely fashion for violations, action level exceedances, or late-arriving Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) data but focused in the final rule on using the second delivery to ensure consumers receive the report from their water system.

In the proposed rule, EPA had a provision that was aimed at banning “false or misleading statements or representations,” which on its face is not that concerning. However, in the text explaining that provision in the proposal, EPA had stated that it may be false or misleading to refer to drinking water as safe—even if a system was in compliance with all health-based drinking water standards. AWWA and many others wrote in about challenges associated with the proposed provision. As part of preparing its comments, AWWA conducted public polling that found that 77% of adults expected their utility to refer to its water as safe if it met all health-based regulations, and 74% believed that if a utility cannot say the water is safe, they will think it is unsafe. A single word makes a huge difference in perception.

In finalizing the rule, EPA cited existing protections against falsification of records both within SDWA and in other civil and criminal laws, leaving out the proposed new language.

So what are the changes in the rule overall? Although there are a great many smaller items, the largest and most impactful six changes (summarized in Figure 1) are as follows.

Requirement for systems that serve more than 10,000 people to provide their CCR twice per year. As discussed earlier, this can be accomplished by providing the annual CCR a second time—in the second half of the year. However, if there are new violations, action level exceedances, or late-arriving UCMR data (from the year the CCR reports on) occur Jan. 1–June 30, then a supplement must be included to address those changes. Other key aspects of the CCR delivery timeline (except certification, covered later) are modified, but those changes are consistent with current practice.

Increased requirements for translation, language assistance, and accessibility for those with limited English proficiency and/or disabilities. States will remain responsible for determining whether a system's service area contains limited English proficiency (LEP) communities that will require assistance. Water systems serving communities with a large proportion of LEP customers will need to inform customers how they can request a translated copy or receive assistance in the applicable language. Larger systems (those serving at least 100,000 people) must also develop a plan and submit it to the primacy agency on how the system will address communicating with LEP customers. States will be required to provide technical assistance with these requirements. EPA has committed to translating the text of all mandatory CCR language to aid in addressing this requirement.

New requirement for a summary section at the beginning of the CCR with specific requirements. CCRs will be required to display a summary “prominently at the beginning of the report” that lists violations and compliance information, provides contact information (including how to get a paper copy of the report if desired), and indicates where to obtain language and translation assistance. Elements in the summary do not need to be repeated elsewhere unless they are needed for context.

Continued applicability of electronic delivery options. This rulemaking codifies electronic delivery as an accepted means of distributing CCR. Electronic delivery was allowed through various means (including delivering a notice that includes a link that goes directly to the CCR) under existing guidance. That guidance rested on an interpretation of the SDWA 1996 amendments and 1998 CCR rule, which at the time of passage did not meaningfully contemplate electronic delivery. Absent a formal rulemaking like this one, EPA could have reinterpreted its 2012 finding and removed the electronic delivery option. EPA's implementation of AWIA makes electronic delivery a permanent option. Stakeholders, including AWWA, had sought more flexibility in electronic delivery to make the CCR more reader-friendly and informative. The final rule closely follows existing guidance.

In a related development, the agency lowered the threshold for required public internet posting of the CCR. Previously, only water systems that served a population of at least 100,000 were required to do so; now it's 50,000. Limited data shows that many in the 50,000–99,999 category already post their CCR publicly on the internet and thus will not need to make changes to meet this requirement.

More rapid certification of CCR delivery to the primacy agency. The rule will require that water systems certify the delivery of the CCR has been completed within 10 days of the delivery deadline. The prior requirement was within three months. The goal of this change is to improve compliance with this administrative requirement, which has had a history of inordinately high noncompliance.

Compliance monitoring data to be provided by primacy agencies to EPA annually. Historically, only violations data held by primacy agencies were required to be provided to EPA, and other compliance monitoring data were kept only within the primacy agency's systems. Although these provisions in the rule aren’t really related to the CCR (something that many commenters pointed out from the proposal), EPA has included a provision changing the requirements for what primacy agencies must submit to EPA, which will now include all compliance monitoring data being sent to EPA annually. Considerable technical hurdles exist to appropriately and effectively transfer these data from each primacy agency to EPA. Given these hurdles, EPA delayed implementation to 2028 to allow ongoing improvements to the Safe Drinking Water Information System.

Other changes not covered in this overview of major changes are minor ones to some definitions and other required text. All systems are encouraged to work with their primacy agencies well in advance of the 2027 compliance dates for the CCR provisions to ensure they are fully prepared.