[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78203-78209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-32376]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[FRL-7428-2]


Minor Clarification of National Primary Drinking Water Regulation 
for Arsenic

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Today, EPA is proposing to revise the rule text that 
established the 10 parts per billion arsenic drinking water standard to 
express the standard as 0.010 mg/L instead, in order to clarify the 
implementation of the original rule.

DATES: EPA must receive public comment on this proposed rule by January 
22, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or 
through hand delivery/courier. Send comments to: Water Docket, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2002-
0057. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in section I.C. of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

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 Reding, Office of 
Ground Water

[[Page 78204]]

and Drinking Water (MC-4607M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460, (202) 564-4656, e-
mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Who Is Regulated by This Action?

    Entities potentially regulated by this regulation 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Examples of potentially regulated
                                 Category                                                 entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Tribal and Local Government.......................................  State, Tribal or local government-
                                                                            owned/operated water supply systems
                                                                            using ground water, surface water or
                                                                            mixed ground water and surface
                                                                            water.
Federal Government.......................................................  Federally owned/operated community
                                                                            water supply systems using ground
                                                                            water, surface water or mixed ground
                                                                            water and surface water.
Industry.................................................................  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 sections 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) 566-1744, 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 http://www.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 submit or 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. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. 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.1.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the 
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are 
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after 
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not 
required to consider these late comments.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing 
address,

[[Page 78205]]

and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your 
comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any 
disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the 
disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA 
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information 
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made 
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    a. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to 
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for 
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. 
OW-2002-0057. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means 
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    b. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OW-2002-0057. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    c. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that 
you mail to the mailing address identified in section I.C.2. These 
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file 
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    2. By Mail. Send an original and three copies of your comments and 
any enclosures to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 
Code 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460, 
Attention Docket ID No. OW-2002-0057.
    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Water 
Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-
2002-0057. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal 
hours of operation as identified in section I.B.1.

D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket 
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and 
Federal Register citation related to your comments.

II. What Is EPA's Statutory Authority for This Proposal?

    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 enforcement responsibility for drinking water 
standards must revise their programs to adopt new or revised Federal 
regulations. Today's action clarifies one issue raised by stakeholders 
concerning the standard published in January 2001.

III. What Is EPA Proposing Today?

    In the January 2001 rule that established a 10 ppb (0.01 mg/L) 
arsenic drinking water standard, EPA clarified at 40 CFR 141.23(i)(4) 
that systems must report their monitoring results to the nearest 1 ppb 
(0.001 mg/L).
    EPA added this provision to make clear that compliance with the new 
standard would be measured to the nearest 0.001 mg/L, thus rounding of 
results to the nearest 0.01 mg/L would not be permitted. Every aspect 
of the final rule, and all analyses supporting the rule, are expressed 
in terms of the 10 ppb standard.
    A number of States and other stakeholders have raised a concern 
that State laws adopting the Federal law as written may allow rounding 
of such a standard 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. 
Stakeholders attending the arsenic rule implementation workshops also 
identified this rounding issue. EPA considers such rounding to be 
inconsistent with the intent of the rule. In response, States and other 
stakeholders have suggested that the rule text be revised to clarify 
the rounding issue and avoid the potential for confusion about how to 
evaluate compliance results that are greater than 10 ppb.
    Today, EPA is proposing to amend the rule text so that the new 
arsenic standard is expressed as 0.010 mg/L instead of 0.01 mg/L. While 
EPA firmly believes that the existing rule, in light of the clarity of 
the supporting discussion and documents and the addition of new 40 CFR 
141.23(i)(4), already establishes 10 ppb and not 14 ppb as the new 
standard, EPA nonetheless believes a clarifying amendment is 
appropriate for two reasons. First, it is important to be responsive to 
State officials and other stakeholders who want to implement the 
regulations as intended but believe they need additional rule text to 
avoid confusion as they move to adopt the Federal arsenic standard. In 
this regard, the Agency does not want the technical way that the 
arsenic MCL is expressed in the regulations to be an obstacle for State 
adoption or to cause unnecessary transaction costs for State 
regulators, utility owners and operators, and other stakeholders who 
will help implement the new arsenic standard. Second, it is critical 
that public water systems evaluate, choose, and install the technology 
necessary to comply with the new arsenic standard as soon as possible. 
Hence, EPA wants to eliminate any remaining confusion or uncertainty 
over what the new enforceable standard for arsenic is. Readers should 
note that regardless of whether EPA finalizes this rule, EPA believes 
the 10 ppb standard has already been established by the existing rule.

[[Page 78206]]

IV. What Issue Is Open for Public Comment?

    Today, EPA is requesting comment on a proposed rule change that 
would revise the rule text so that the 10 ppb standard is expressed as 
0.010 mg/L instead of 0.01 mg/L. EPA requests comment on whether this 
change is appropriate in order to address the previously described 
stakeholder concerns. Readers should please note that EPA is not 
requesting comment on any other issue associated with the arsenic 
standard or its implementation, and EPA will not respond to any 
comments other than those concerning the revision of the rule text to 
express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L.
    EPA firmly believes that extensive and exhaustive public debate has 
already taken place on all issues of public interest and concern. As a 
result, EPA will not respond to any other comments relating to the 10 
ppb arsenic standard; nor will EPA respond to any issues concerning the 
record supporting that standard, the underlying rationale for that 
standard, or new information suggesting revisions to that standard. 
However, EPA noted in the April 17, 2002 (67 FR 19037) announcement of 
the results of EPA's review of existing drinking water standards, that 
EPA will continue to evaluate the expert analysis, the voluminous 
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, 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 proposed 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 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. 
seq. This proposed 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. sections 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 proposed 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 
requirements, EPA proposed using this alternative definition in the 
Federal Register, (63 FR 7620, February 13, 1998), requested public 
comment, consulted with 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 alternative definition would be applied to this proposed 
regulation.
    This proposed rule imposes no cost on any entities over and above 
those imposed by the final arsenic rule, because that rule was 
developed, costed, and evaluated as 10 ppb. This proposed rule merely 
clarifies the way the 10 ppb MCL is expressed in regulatory text. 
Therefore, after considering the economic impacts of today's proposed 
rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
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 written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome

[[Page 78207]]

alternative that achieves the objectives 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 proposed 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 proposed rule imposes no 
enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the 
private sector. This proposed 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 proposed rule merely clarifies the way the 10 ppb MCL is expressed 
in regulatory text. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    For the same reason, EPA has determined that this proposed rule 
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's proposed rule is not 
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

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 on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed 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 the proposed rule does not preempt State law. 
This proposed 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, costed, and evaluated as 10 ppb. This proposed rule 
merely clarifies the way the 10 ppb MCL is expressed in regulatory 
text. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. 
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy 
to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, 
EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposal from State and 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 proposed 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 the proposed rule does not 
preempt tribal law. This proposed 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 
proposed 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 solicits additional comment on this proposal 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 proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 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

[[Page 78208]]

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Today's proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 141

    Chemicals, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation 
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

    Dated: December 17, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

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

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

    2. Section 141.23 is amended:
    a. By revising the entry for arsenic in the table in paragraph 
(a)(4)(i).
    b. By revising footnote 15 to the table in paragraph (k)(1).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  141.23  Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *

                                   Detection Limits for Inorganic Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Detection
              Contaminant                  MCL (mg/l)                  Methodology                 Limit (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Arsenic...............................       0.010 \6\   Atomic Absorption; Furnace.............           0.001
                                                         Atomic Absorption; Platform--Stabilized      \7\ 0.0005
                                                          Temperature.
                                                         Atomic Absorption; Gaseous Hydride.....           0.001
                                                         ICP-Mass Spectrometry..................     \8\ 0.0014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
\6\ The value for arsenic is effective January 23, 2006. Until then, the MCL is 0.05 mg/L.
\7\ The 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) * * *
    (1) * * *
* * * * *
    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:


Sec.  141.62  Maximum contaminant levels for inorganic contaminants.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Contaminant                     MCL (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(16) Arsenic....................................        0.010
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart O--[Amended]

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


Sec.  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:

[[Page 78209]]

Appendix A to Subpart O--Regulated Contaminants

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         To convert    MCL in
           Contaminant (units)             Traditional     for CCR       CCR     MCLG   Major sources in drinking water      Health effects language
                                          MCL in  mg/L   multiply by    units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Inorganic contaminants:
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Arsenic.................................    \1\ 0.010          1000   \1\ 10.   \1\ 0   Erosion of natural deposits;     Some people who drink water
                                                                                         Runoff from orchards; Runoff     containing arsenic in excess
                                                                                         from glass and electronics       of the MCL over many years
                                                                                         production wastes.               could experience skin damage
                                                                                                                          or problems with their
                                                                                                                          circulatory system, and may
                                                                                                                          have an increased 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.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MCLG \1\  mg/                  Standard health effects language for
               Contaminant                      L       MCL \2\ mg/L              public notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
9. Arsenic \11\.........................            0         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.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-32376 Filed 12-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P