[Federal Register: December 23, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 246)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78203-78209]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23de02-23]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Reding.Richard@epa.gov.
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 OW-
Docket@epa.gov, 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