EPA815-Z-03-002
                Tuesday,
                March 25, 2003
                Part in

                Environmental
                Protection Agency
                40 CFR Part 141
                Minor Clarification of National Primary
                Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic;
                Final Rule
^^^SBiB^^i^^M^gg|Sily|
f        -\

-------

-------
14502
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 57/Tuesday, March 25, 2003/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[FRL-7472-5]

Minor Clarification of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today, EPA is revising the
rule text in its January 2001 final rule
that established the 10 parts per billion
arsenic drinking water standard to
express the standard as 0.010 mg/L, in
order to clarify the implementation of
the original rule.
DATES: This regulation is effective April
24, 2003. For purposes of judicial
review, this final rule is promulgated as
of 1 p.m. Eastern Time on March 25,
2003.
                         ADDRESSES: The official public docket
                         for this rule is located at EPA's Water
                         Docket, in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
                         DC), EPAjWest, Rm B102,1301
                         Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
                         DC.     [
                         FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
                         general information contact the EPA
                         Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800)
                         426-4791. The Hotline operates Monday
                         through Friday, excluding Federal
                         holidays,;from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET.
                         For technical information contact,
                         Richard Ceding, Office of Ground Water
                         and Drinking Water (MC-4607M), U.S.
                         Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
                         Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington
                         DC 20460', (202) 564-4656, email:
                         Reding.Richard@epa.gov.
                         SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                         I. General Information
                         A. Who IS Regulated by This Action?
                           Entities potentially regulated by this
                         regulatiofi are public water systems
(PWSs). All community and non-
transient non-community water systems
must comply with the revised arsenic
drinking water standard beginning on
January 23, 2006. A community water
system (CWS) means a public water
system which serves at least 15 service
connections used by year-round
residents or regularly serves at least 25
year-round residents. Non-transient
non-community water system
(NTNCWS) means a public water system
that is not a community water system
and that regularly serves at least 25 of
the same persons over 6 months per
year. Primacy States are required to
revise their programs to adopt the new
arsenic standard by January 22, 2003
(unless an extension has been granted).
Categories and entities potentially
regulated by this action include the
following:
Category

Federal Government 	





• '

Examples of potentially regulated entities
State, Tribal or local government-owned/operated water supply sys-
tems using ground water, surface water or mixed ground water and
surface water.
Federally owned/operated community water supply systems using
ground water, surface water or mixed ground water and surface
water.
Privately owned/operated community water supply systems using
ground water, surface water or mixed ground water and surface
water.
  This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in §§ 141.11 and
141.62 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This
Document and Other Related
Information?
   1. Docket. EPA has established an
official public docket for this action
under Docket ID No. OW-2002-0057.
The official public docket consists of the
documents specifically referenced in
this action, any public comments
received, and other information related
                                 !

                         to this action. Although a part of the
                         official docket, the public docket does
                         not include Confidential Business
                         Information (CBI) or other information
                         whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
                         The official public docket is the
                         collection of materials that is available
                         for public viewing at the Water Docket
                         in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC),
                         EPA West, Room B102,1301
                         Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
                         DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
                         Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
                         4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
                         excluding legal holidays. The telephone
                         number for the Public Reading Room is
                         (202) 566J-1744,  and the telephone ,
                         number for the Water Docket is (202)
                         566—2426. For access to docket material,
                         please call (202) 566-2426  to schedule
                         an appointment.
                           2. Electronic Access. You may access
                         this Federal Register document
                         electronically through the EPA Internet
                         under the "Federal Register" listings at
                         h tip jfwi/rw. epa .gov/fedrgstr/.
                           An electronic version of the public
                         docket is available through EPA's
electronic public docket and comment
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA
Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/
to view public comments, to access the
index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access
those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically.
Although'not all docket materials may
be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket
facility identified in section I.B.I. Once
in the system, select "search," then key
in the appropriate docket identification
number.
H. What is EPA's Statutory Authority
for This Final Rule?
   SDWA section 1412(b)(12)(A)
required EPA to publish a revised
arsenic standard. On January 22, 2001,
EPA published a final rule revising the
existing arsenic drinking water standard
from 50 parts per billion  (ppb) to 10
ppb, with a compliance date of January
23, 2006 (66 FR 6976-7066). Under
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 142.12,
States that wish to maintain primary

-------
              Federal Register/Vol.  68,  No. 57/Tuesday, March 25, 2003/Rules and Regulations
                                                                    14503
enforcement responsibility for drinking
water standards must revise their
programs to adopt new or revised
Federal regulations. Today's final rule
clarifies one issue raised by
stakeholders concerning the standard
published in January 2001.
HI. What Is EPA Doing Today?
  Today, EPA is revising the rule text to
express the new arsenic maximum
contaminant level (MCL) as 0.010 mg/L
instead of 0.01 mg/L. EPA is making this
minor regulatory amendment in
response to a concern raised by a
number of States and other stakeholders
that State laxvs adopting the Federal
arsenic standard as 0.01 mg/L might
allow rounding of monitoring results
above 0.01 mg/L so that the effective
standard (in consideration of rounding
of results) would be 0.014 mg/L (or 14
ppb), not 0.010 mg/L (10 ppb). These
States and other stakeholders suggested
that the rule text be revised to clarify the
rounding issue and avoid the potential
for confusion about how to evaluate
compliance monitoring results that are
greater than 10 ppb. In response, EPA
solicited public comment on today's
amendment in a proposed rulemaking
that was published on December 23,
2002 (67 FR 78203). Although EPA
considers this amendment to be a minor
clarification of the intent of the January
2001 rule, EPA chose to conduct a
formal rulemaking to provide a full
opportunity for public comment with
respect to tine rounding issue.
IV. Summary of Public Comments'on
Today's Regulatory Change
  The  comment period on the December
2002 proposed rule closed on January
22, 2003. Most commenters strongly
supported today's action; other
cornmenters indicated a concern. A
summary of these comments follows.
The comments and EPA's responses are
included in the Docket for today's final
rule.
   In expressing support for making
today's clarification, some commenters
requested extensions of the compliance
deadlines that were specified in the
January 2001 rule. EPA does not agree
that an extension of the compliance
deadline is necessary or appropriate.
The EPA Administrator is firmly
committed to maintaining the January
23, 2006, compliance date for a new
arsenic standard (66 FR 20581, April 23,
2001). EPA also has been clear that the
2006 compliance deadline applies to all
systems with arsenic levels above 10
ppb. As noted in the December 2002
proposal to clarify the rule text, every
aspect of the existing final rule and all
analyses supporting the rule establish
10 ppb as the new arsenic standard. In
addition, EPA made clear in several
contexts that rounding down monitoring
results in the range of 11 to 14 ppb to
10 ppb was not allowed under the rule
(e.g., in a guidance memorandum (EPA
2002a), in EPA's document
"Implementation Guidance for the
Arsenic Rule" (EPA 2002b), and in the
training conducted by EPA (EPA 2002c)
on the rule since its issuance). For
systems that may need additional time
to come into compliance with the rule
for cost or technical reasons, there is an
exemption process under SDWA section
1416 under which eligible systems may
receive additional time, if necessary.
This process was fully addressed in the
January 22, 2001, rule (66 FR 6988).
  In expressing support for making
today's clarification, some commenters
also requested extensions of the
deadlines to submit revised arsenic
primacy packages that were specified in
the January 2001 rule. With respect to
the deadline for States or Tribes to
submit primacy revision packages,
because the Agency has been clear that
no rounding is permitted under the
Federal rule, State programs that allow
systems to round compliance
monitoring results that are greater than
10 ppb down to 10 ppb will not be
approved. The provisions in 40 CFR
142.12, for EPA (at the EPA regional
office level) to grant extensions of the
two-year period for adoption of the
revised arsenic regulation as appropriate
on a case-by-case basis, are sufficient to
accommodate the commenters' requests
for additional time for submission or
revision of primacy packages. EPA notes
that States routinely request and receive
extensions of their primacy deadline.
  One commenter believes that State
and local governments should have
maximum flexibility in implementing
Federal regulatory requirements. The
commenter does not support today's
clarification because it limits the ability
of State and local governments to
mitigate adverse financial effects of the
arsenic standard, especially for rural or
low income systems. The commenter
suggested States should have the
flexibility to use public education at
systems where arsenic levels are
between 10 and 14 ppb instead of
requiring compliance at 10 ppb.
However, EPA does not agree that the
final arsenic rule, as promulgated in
January 2001, would allow the use of
public education rather than
compliance with the 10 ppb standard at
any system where arsenic levels exceed
the 10 ppb standard and are between 10
and 14 ppb. As EPA discussed in the
January 22, 2001, preamble, EPA is
aware of the impact that the new arsenic
standard will have on certain systems.
As discussed in the January 2001 final
rule (67 FR 6992), the Agency is
implementing many financial and
technical assistance actions to mitigate
this impact with an emphasis on
assisting small systems. In addition,
EPA notes that there are certain
flexibilities already built into the
statutory and regulatory structure. For
example, the final arsenic rule discusses
the flexibility for small systems to
receive an extension of up to  nine years
to comply with the new arsenic
standard through the exemption process
provided in SDWA section 1416.
  One commenter submitted  comments
that were not relevant to the December
2002 proposal to revise  the arsenic rule
text to express the 10 ppb standard as
0.010 mg/L instead of 0.01  mg/L. EPA
is not addressing these comments
because, in the December 2002
proposal, EPA clearly informed readers
that EPA was not requesting and would
not respond to comment on any other
issue  associated with the arsenic
standard or its implementation. As
noted in the December 2002 proposal
and in the April 17, 2002, (67 FR 19037)
announcement of the preliminary
results of EPA's review  of existing
drinking water standards, EPA will
continue to evaluate the expert analysis,
the public comment received after
publication of the final  rule, and other
relevant information on the arsenic
drinking water standard, as part of the
next six-year review of  drinking water
standards, which is to be completed in
August of 2008.
V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review

  Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency
must  determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to OMB review  and the
requirements ,of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
  (1)  Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
  (2)  create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
  (3)  materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

-------
14504       Federal  Register/Vol.  68,  No. 57;/Tuesday, March 25, 2003/Rules and Regulations

                                                                              of the rule. The provisions of section
                                                                              205 do not apply when they are
                                                                              inconsistent with applicable law.
                                                                              Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
                                                                              adopt an alternative other than the least
                                                                              costly, most cost-effective or least
                                                                              burdensome alternative if the
                                                                              Administrator publishes with the final
                                                                              rule an explanation why that alternative
                                                                              was not adopted.
                                                                                Before EPA establishes any regulatory
                                                                              requirements that may significantly or
                                                                              uniquely affect small governments,
                                                                              including Tribal governments, it must
                                                                              have developed under section 203 of the
                                                                              UMRA a small government agency plan.
                                                                              The plan must provide for notifying
                                                                              potentially affected small governments,
                                                                              enabling officials of affected small
                                                                              governments to have meaningful and
                                                                              timely input in the development of EPA
                                                                              regulatory proposals with significant
                                                                              Federal intergovernmental mandates,
                                                                              and informing, educating, and advising
                                                                              small governments on compliance with
                                                                              the regulatory requirements.
                                                                                Today's final rule contains no Federal
                                                                              mandates (under the regulatory
                                                                              provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
                                                                              State, local, or Tribal governments or
                                                                              the private sector. This final rule
                                                                              imposes no enforceable duty on any
                                                                              State, local or Tribal governments or the
                                                                              private sector. This final rule would not
                                                                              change the costs to State, local, or Tribal
                                                                              governments as estimated in the final
                                                                              arsenic rule, because that rule was
                                                                              developed, costed, and evaluated as 10
                                                                              ppb, and this final rule merely clarifies
                                                                              the way  the 10 ppb MCL is expressed in
                                                                              regulatory text. Thus, today's final rule
                                                                              is not subject to the requirements of
                                                                              sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
                                                                                 For the same reason, EPA has
                                                                              determined that this final rule contains
                                                                              no regulatory requirements that might
                                                                              significantly or uniquely affect small
                                                                              governments. Thus, today's'final rule is
                                                                              not subject to the requirements of
                                                                              section 203 of the UMRA.
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
  (4) raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
  It has been determined that this final
rule is not a "significant regulatory
action" under the terms of Executive
Order 12866 and is therefore not subject
to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act
  This action does not impose any new
information collection burden tinder the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et.seq. This final
rule merely clarifies the way the 10 ppb
MCL  for arsenic is expressed in
regulatory text.
  Burden means the  total time; effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and  transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
  An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the Agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small  entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions.
  The RFA provides default definitions
for each type of small entity. It also
authorizes an agency to use alternative
 definitions for each  category of small
 entity, "which are appropriate to the
 activities of the agency" after proposing
the alternative definition(s) in the
Federal Register and taking comment. 5
U.S.C. 601;(3)—(5). In addition to the
above, to establish an alternative small
business definition, agencies must
consult with the Small Business
Administration's (SBA's) Chief Counsel
for Advocacy.
   For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today's -final rule on small entities,
EPA considered small entities to be
public water systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons. This is the cut-off level
specified by Congress in the 1996
Amendments  to the Safe Drinking Water
Act for small system flexibility
provisions. In accordance with the RFA
requiremehts, EPA proposed using this  ,
alternative definition in the Federal
Register, (63 FR 7620, February 13,
'1998), requested public comment,
consultedjwith the Small Business
Administration (SBA), and expressed its
intention to use the alternative
definition; for regulatory flexibility
assessments under the RFA for all future
drinking water regulations in the
Consumer Confidence Reports
' regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19,
1998). As :stated in that final rule, the
alternativfe definition would be applied
to this regulation.
   This firial rule imposes no cost on any
 entities o^fer and above those imposed
by the final arsenic rule, because that
rule was developed, costed, and
 evaluated1 as 10 ppb. This final rule
merely clarifies the way the 10 ppb MCL
is expressed in regulatory text.
Therefore! after considering the
 economic! impacts Of today's final rule
 on small Entities, I certify that this
 action will not have a significant
 economic' impact on a substantial
 number oif small entities.
 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
   Title II bf the Unfunded Mandates
 Reform Apt of 1995 (UMRA), Public
 Law 104^4, establishes requirements for
 Federal agencies to assess the effects of
 their regulatory actions on State, local,
 and Tribajl governments and the private
 sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
 EPA generally must prepare a written
 statement, including a cost-benefit
 analysis, for proposed and final rules
 with "Federal mandates" that may
 result in expenditures to State, local,
 and Tribal governments, in the
 aggregate] or to the private sector, of
 $100 million or more in any one year.
 Before promulgating an EPA rule for
 which a \yritten statement is needed,
 section 205 of the UMRA generally
 requires EPA to identify and consider a
 reasonable number of regulatory
 alternatiyes and adopt the'least costly,
 most cost-effective or least burdensome
 alternative that achieves the objectives
                                                                               E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
                                                                                 Executive Order 13132, entitled
                                                                               "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,
                                                                               1999), requires EPA to develop an
                                                                               accountable process to ensure
                                                                               "meaningful and timely input by State
                                                                               and local officials in the development of
                                                                               regulatory policies that have federalism
                                                                               implications." "Policies that have
                                                                               federalism implications" is defined in
                                                                               the Executive Order to include
                                                                               regulations that have "substantial direct
                                                                               effects on the States, on the relationship
                                                                               between the national government and
                                                                               the States, or oh the distribution of
                                                                               power and responsibilities among the
                                                                               various levels  of government."

-------
              Federal Register/Vol. 68, No.  57/Tuesday, March 25,  2003/Rules and Regulations
                                                                    14505
  This final rule does not have
Federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. There is no cost
to State and local governments, and this
final rule does not preempt State law.
This final rule imposes no cost on any
State, or local governments over and
above those imposed by the final arsenic
rule because that rule was developed,
costcd, and evaluated as 10 ppb. This
final rule merely clarifies the way the 10
ppb MCL is expressed in regulatory text.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13132, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA arid State
and local governments, EPA specifically
solicited comment on the proposed rule
from State and local officials. EPA
received no comment on Federalism
issues from State or local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With  Indian Tribal
Governments
  Executive Order 13175, entitled
"Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR
67249, (November 9, 2000)), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure "meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that  have tribal
implications." "Policies that have tribal
implications" is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have "substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes."
  This final rule does not have Tribal
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on Tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
There is no cost to Tribal governments,
and this final rule does  not preempt
Tribal law. This final rule imposes no
cost on any Tribal government over and
above those imposed by the final arsenic
rule because that rule was developed,
costed and evaluated as 10 ppb. This
final rule merely clarifies the way the 10
ppb MCL is expressed in regulatory text.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13175, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and
Tribal governments, EPA specifically
solicited comment on the proposed rule
from Tribal officials. EPA received no
comment from Tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
  Executive Order 13045: "Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885,
April 23,1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) is determined to be economically
significant as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially  effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
  This final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it  is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because it
does not concern an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason
to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. This final rule merely
clarifies the way the 10 ppb MCL is
expressed in regulatory text.
H. Executive Order 13211:. Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
  This final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, "Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
/. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
  As noted in the December 2002
proposed rule, section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in  its
regulatory activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., material specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
  This action does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
/. Congressional Review Act
  The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule,  to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S.  Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a "major rule" as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective on April 24, 2003.

VI. References
EPA 2002a "Calculation of Compliance
  for the New Arsenic MCL", Cynthia C.
  Dougherty memorandum, January 25,
  2002.
EPA 2002b "Implementation Guidance
  for the Arsenic Rule", EPA16-K-02-
  018, August 2002, Section I-A.4, and
  Figure II-l.
EPA 2002c "Arsenic and Clarifications
  to Compliance and New Source
  Contaminants Monitoring",
  Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 15-
  16, 2002, pp. 8-9.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 141
  Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Indians-lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
  Dated: March 19, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
A dministrator.
  For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

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

-------
14506       Federal Register/ Vol. 68, No^ 57J/Tuesday, March 25, 2003/Rules and Regulations
  Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2,    b. By revising footnote 15 to the table   §141.23  Inorganic chemical sampling and
300g-3,30.0g-i, 300g-5,300g-6,300J-4,      jn (k)(l).                                 analytical requirements.
300J-9, and 300J-11.                         _,,      t .       j   f ,,               *****
   '          '                           • The revisions read as follows:             f -, *  *  *
                                                                                   laj
                                                  ;                                 (4) *  *  *
  2. Section 141.23 is amended:
  a. By revising the entry for arsenic in
the table in (a)(4)(i).
                                   DETECTION LIMITS FOR INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
         . Contaminant
                                  MCL (mg/l)
                                                                       Methodology
                            Detection
                            limit (mg/1)




i 00106 Atomic Absorption; Furnace 	 . 	


ICP-Mass Spectrometry 	
	 0.001
0.0005 7
	 	 0.001
	 0.00148
  6The value for arsenic is effective January 23, 2006. Until then, the MCL is 0.05 mg/L.    '
  7The MDL reported for  EPA Method 200.9 (Atomic Absorption; Platform—Stabilized Temperature) was determined using a 2x concentration
step during sample digestion. The MDL determined for samples analyzed using direct analyses (i.e., no sample digestion) will be higher. Using
multiple depositions, EPA 200.9 is capable of obtaining MDL of 0.0001 mg/L.                .„„„„.,    „
  8 Using selective ion monitoring, EPA Method 200.8 (ICP-MS) is capable of obtaining a MDL of 0.0001 mg/L.
   (k)* * *
   (!)***
   15 Starting January 23, 2006, analytical
methods using the ICP-AES technology, may
not be used because the detection limits for
these methods are 0.008 mg/L or higher. This
restriction means that the two ICP—AES
methods (EPA Method 200.7 and SM 3120 B)
approved for use for the MCL of 0.05 mg/L
may not be used for compliance
determinations for the revised MCL of 0.010
mg/L. However, prior to January 23, 2006,
systems may have compliance samples
analyzed with these less sensitive methods.
*    *    *    *    *

   3. Section 141.62(b) is amended by
revising the entry "(16)" for arsenic in
the table to read as follows:

§ 141.62  Maximum contaminant levels for
inorganic contaminants.
(b)* *;*
Contaminant
* * ; - *
i
i
(16) Arsenic 	 	
* * *

MCL (mg/l)
*- *

	 0.010
* *
                                         Subpart O—[Amended]

                                           4. Amend § 141.154 by revising
                                         paragraphs (b) introductory text and (f)
                                         to read as follows:

                                         §141.154 ! Required additional health
                                         information.
  (b) Ending in the report due by July
1, 2001, a system which detects arsenic
at levels above 0.025 mg/L, but below
the 0.05 mg/L, and beginning in the
report due by July 1, 2002, a system that
detects arsenic above 0.005 mg/L and up
to and including 0.010 mg/L:
*****

  (f) Beginning in the report due by July
1, 2002, and ending January 22, 2006, a
community water system that detects
arsenic above 0.010 mg/L and up to and
including 0.05 mg/L must include the
arsenic health effects language
prescribed by Appendix A to Subpart O
of this part.

  5. Amend Appendix A to Subpart O
by revising the entry for arsenic under
"Inorganic contaminants:" to read as
follows:
                                APPENDIX A TO SUBPART O—REGULATED CONTAMINANTS
Contaminant
(units)
Traditional '
MCL in mg/L
To convert
forCCR,
multiply by
MCL in
CCR units
, .-, ~ Major sources in drinking
MCLG . water
Health effects language
 Inorganic con-
   taminants
     Arsenic (ppb)
                        10.010
                                        1000
                                                       110.     10  Erosion of natural deposits;
                                                                     Runoff from orchards;
                                                                     Runoff from glass and
                                                                     electronics production
                                                                     wastes.
           Some  people  who  drink water
            containing arsenic  in excess of
            the MCL over many years could
            experience   skin  damage  or
            problems with  their circulatory
            system, and may  have an in-
            creased risk of getting cancer.
   1 These arsenic values are effective January 23, 2006. Until then, the MCL is 0.05 mg/L and there is no MCLG.

-------
              Federal Register/Vol. 68, No.  57/Tuesday, March 25, 2003/Rules and Regulations
                                                                                      14507
Subpart Q—[Amended]

  6. Amend Appendix B to Subpart Q
by revising entry "9. Arsenic" under "C.
                  Inorganic Chemicals (IOCs)", to read as
                  follows:
     APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
     Contaminant
MCLG1 mg/L    MCL2 mg/L
Standard health effects language for public notification
    9. Arsenic11
                    0.010  Some people who drink water containing arsenic in excess of the MCL over many
                            years "could experience skin damage or problems with  their circulatory system,
                            and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
  Appendix B—Endnotes
  1. MCLG—Maximum contaminant level goal.
  2. MCL—Maximum contaminant level.
  11. These arsenic values are effective
January 23, 2006. Until then, the MCL
is 0.05 mg/L and there is no MCLG.
IFR Doc. 03-7048 Filed 3-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CS60-SO-P

-------