[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14501-14507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-7048]
[[Page 14501]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 141
Minor Clarification of National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for
Arsenic; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 2003 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 14502]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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), EPA West, 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 Reding, 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: [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
Category regulated 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 Sec. Sec. 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 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.1. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket identification number.
II. 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
[[Page 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.
III. 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 laws
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 the
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 commenters 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,
[[Page 14504]]
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
under 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
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 regulation.
This final 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 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 of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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 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 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.
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.''
[[Page 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, 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 13132 does not apply to this 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 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.
I. 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.
J. 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-1.
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,
Administrator.
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:
[[Page 14506]]
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 (a)(4)(i).
b. By revising footnote 15 to the table in (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/1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arsenic.................................... 0.010 \6\ Atomic Absorption; Furnace......... 0.001
Atomic Absorption; Platform-- 0.0005 \7\
Stabilized Temperature.
Atomic Absorption; Gaseous Hydride. 0.001
ICP-Mass Spectrometry.............. 0.0014 \8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
\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:
Appendix A to Subpart O--Regulated Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To convert Major sources
Contaminant (units) Traditional for CCR, MCL in CCR MCLG in drinking Health effects
MCL in mg/L multiply by units water language
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Inorganic contaminants
* * * * * * *
Arsenic (ppb)..... \1\ 0.010 1000 \1\ 10. \1\ 0 Erosion of Some people who
natural drink water
deposits; containing
Runoff from arsenic in
orchards; excess of the
Runoff from MCL over many
glass and years could
electronics experience
production skin damage or
wastes. 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.
[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard health effects language
Contaminant MCLG \1\ mg/L MCL \2\ mg/L for 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. 03-7048 Filed 3-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P