Tuesday,

March
25,
2003
Part
III
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
141
Minor
Clarification
of
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulation
for
Arsenic;
Final
Rule
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
18:
56
Mar
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
25MRR2.
SGM
25MRR2
14502
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
57
/
Tuesday,
March
25,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
141
[
FRL
 
7472
 
5]

Minor
Clarification
of
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulation
for
Arsenic
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
Today,
EPA
is
revising
the
rule
text
in
its
January
2001
final
rule
that
established
the
10
parts
per
billion
arsenic
drinking
water
standard
to
express
the
standard
as
0.010
mg/
L,
in
order
to
clarify
the
implementation
of
the
original
rule.
DATES:
This
regulation
is
effective
April
24,
2003.
For
purposes
of
judicial
review,
this
final
rule
is
promulgated
as
of
1
p.
m.
Eastern
Time
on
March
25,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
The
official
public
docket
for
this
rule
is
located
at
EPA's
Water
Docket,
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
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:
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
nontransient
non­
community
water
systems
must
comply
with
the
revised
arsenic
drinking
water
standard
beginning
on
January
23,
2006.
A
community
water
system
(
CWS)
means
a
public
water
system
which
serves
at
least
15
service
connections
used
by
year­
round
residents
or
regularly
serves
at
least
25
year­
round
residents.
Non­
transient
non­
community
water
system
(
NTNCWS)
means
a
public
water
system
that
is
not
a
community
water
system
and
that
regularly
serves
at
least
25
of
the
same
persons
over
6
months
per
year.
Primacy
States
are
required
to
revise
their
programs
to
adopt
the
new
arsenic
standard
by
January
22,
2003
(
unless
an
extension
has
been
granted).
Categories
and
entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
include
the
following:

Category
Examples
of
potentially
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
§
§
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
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
18:
56
Mar
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
25MRR2.
SGM
25MRR2
14503
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
57
/
Tuesday,
March
25,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
18:
56
Mar
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
25MRR2.
SGM
25MRR2
14504
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
57
/
Tuesday,
March
25,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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.''

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
18:
56
Mar
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
25MRR2.
SGM
25MRR2
14505
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
57
/
Tuesday,
March
25,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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:

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
18:
56
Mar
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
25MRR2.
SGM
25MRR2
14506
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
57
/
Tuesday,
March
25,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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:
§
141.23
Inorganic
chemical
sampling
and
analytical
requirements.

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

DETECTION
LIMITS
FOR
INORGANIC
CONTAMINANTS
Contaminant
MCL
(
mg/
l)
Methodology
Detection
limit
(
mg/
1)

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arsenic
.............................................
0.010
6
Atomic
Absorption;
Furnace
......................................................................
0.001
Atomic
Absorption;
Platform
 
Stabilized
Temperature
............................
0.0005
7
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:

§
141.62
Maximum
contaminant
levels
for
inorganic
contaminants.

*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
*
*
*

Contaminant
MCL
(
mg/
l)

*
*
*
*
*

(
16)
Arsenic
..........................
0.010
*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
O
 
[
Amended]

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

§
141.154
Required
additional
health
information.

*
*
*
*
*
(
b)
Ending
in
the
report
due
by
July
1,
2001,
a
system
which
detects
arsenic
at
levels
above
0.025
mg/
L,
but
below
the
0.05
mg/
L,
and
beginning
in
the
report
due
by
July
1,
2002,
a
system
that
detects
arsenic
above
0.005
mg/
L
and
up
to
and
including
0.010
mg/
L:
*
*
*
*
*
(
f)
Beginning
in
the
report
due
by
July
1,
2002,
and
ending
January
22,
2006,
a
community
water
system
that
detects
arsenic
above
0.010
mg/
L
and
up
to
and
including
0.05
mg/
L
must
include
the
arsenic
health
effects
language
prescribed
by
Appendix
A
to
Subpart
O
of
this
part.

5.
Amend
Appendix
A
to
Subpart
O
by
revising
the
entry
for
arsenic
under
``
Inorganic
contaminants:''
to
read
as
follows:

APPENDIX
A
TO
SUBPART
O
 
REGULATED
CONTAMINANTS
Contaminant
(
units)
Traditional
MCL
in
mg/
L
To
convert
for
CCR,
multiply
by
MCL
in
CCR
units
MCLG
Major
sources
in
drinking
water
Health
effects
language
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Inorganic
contaminants
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arsenic
(
ppb)
10.010
1000
1
10.
1
0
Erosion
of
natural
deposits;
Runoff
from
orchards;
Runoff
from
glass
and
electronics
production
wastes.
Some
people
who
drink
water
containing
arsenic
in
excess
of
the
MCL
over
many
years
could
experience
skin
damage
or
problems
with
their
circulatory
system,
and
may
have
an
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.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
18:
56
Mar
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
25MRR2.
SGM
25MRR2
14507
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
57
/
Tuesday,
March
25,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Subpart
Q
 
[
Amended]

6.
Amend
Appendix
B
to
Subpart
Q
by
revising
entry
``
9.
Arsenic''
under
``
C.
Inorganic
Chemicals
(
IOCs)'',
to
read
as
follows:

APPENDIX
B
TO
SUBPART
Q
OF
PART
141
 
STANDARD
HEALTH
EFFECTS
LANGUAGE
FOR
PUBLIC
NOTIFICATION
Contaminant
MCLG1
mg/
L
MCL2
mg/
L
Standard
health
effects
language
for
public
notification
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
9.
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
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
18:
56
Mar
24,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
25MRR2.
SGM
25MRR2
