[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