20580 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142

[WH–FRL–6970–3]

RIN 2040–AB75

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications

to Compliance and New Source

Contaminants Monitoring

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Today’s action proposes a

nine-month delay to February 22, 2002

of the current May 22, 2001 effective

date of the arsenic standard. This

standard was promulgated by the

Agency on January 22, 2001 (66 FR

6976), and previously delayed on March

23, 2001 (66 FR 16134) to May 22, 2001.

On January 22, 2001, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

published a final standard for arsenic in

drinking water that would lower the

current arsenic standard from 50 parts

per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb by 2006. On

January 24, 2001, the Federal Register

published the White House’s regulatory

review plan to allow members of the

new administration a 60-day

opportunity to review published

regulations that have not taken effect.

Following Federal Register

promulgation of the arsenic rule, a

number of concerns were raised to EPA

by states, public water systems, and

other stakeholders regarding the

adequacy of science and the basis for

national cost estimates underlying the

rule. Because of the importance of the

arsenic rule and the national debate

surrounding it related to science and

costs, EPA’s Administrator publicly

announced on March 20, 2001, that the

Agency would take additional steps to

reassess the scientific and cost issues

associated with this rule and seek

further public input on each of these

important issues.

Consistent with this commitment,

EPA will request the National Academy

of Sciences to convene a panel of

scientific experts first, to review, the

Agency’s interpretation and application

of arsenic research discussed and

evaluated as part of the National

Academy of Sciences 1999 arsenic

report and, second, to review and

evaluate any new arsenic research that

has become available since the 1999

NAS report. At the same time, EPA will

work with the National Drinking Water

Advisory Council to review the

assumptions and methodologies

underlying the Agency’s estimate of

arsenic compliance costs.

As its next step in this process of

reviewing the January 22, 2001 arsenic

rule, EPA will prepare a proposal for

comment on a range of arsenic MCL

options from 3ppb to 20ppb.

The nine-month extension of the

effective date from May 22, 2001, to

February 22, 2002, for which EPA today

requests comment would allow time to

complete the reassessment process

outlined above and to afford the public

a full opportunity to provide further

input on the science and costing

analysis underlying EPA’s promulgation

of the January 22, 2001, arsenic

standard.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on this proposed regulation

by May 7, 2001 to the address listed

below.

ADDRESSES: You may send written

comments on this proposed rule to the

W–99–6–IV Arsenic Comments Clerk,

Water Docket (MC–4101); U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency; 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,

DC 20460. Comments may be handdelivered to the Water Docket, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency; 401

M Street, SW; EB–57; Washington, DC

20460; (202) 260–3027 between 9 a.m.

and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday

through Friday. Comments may be

submitted electronically to owdocket@epamail.epa.gov. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file

formats and other information about

electronic filing and docket review. The

proposed rule and supporting

documents, including public comments,

are available for review in the Water

Docket at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information about today’s proposal,

contact Ephraim King, Director,

Standards and Risk Management

Division, Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water (4601), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460, phone: (202)

260–7575.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional

Information for Commenters. Please

submit an original and three copies of

your comments and enclosures

(including references). To ensure that

EPA can read, understand, and therefore

properly respond to comments, the

Agency would prefer that comments

cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) or

sections in the notice or supporting

documents to which each comment

refers. Commenters should use a

separate paragraph for each issue

discussed. Electronic comments must be

submitted as a WordPerfect 5.1, WP6.1

or WP8 file or as an ASCII file avoiding

the use of special characters. Comments

and data will also be accepted on disks

in WP 5.1, WP6.1 or WP8, or ASCII file

format. Electronic comments on this

Notice may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

Commenters who want EPA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

should include a self-addressed,

stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes)

or submissions in other electronic

formats (e.g., Word, pdf, Excel) will be

accepted.

Availability of Docket. The docket for

this rulemaking has been established

under number W–99–16–IV, and

includes supporting documentation as

well as printed, paper versions of

electronic comments. The docket is

available for inspection from 9 a.m. to

4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays, at the Water

Docket; EB 57; U.S. EPA; 401 M Street,

SW; Washington, D.C. For access to

docket materials, please call (202) 260–

3027 to schedule an appointment. Every

user is entitled to 100 free pages, and

after that the Docket charges 15 cents a

page. Users are invoiced after they copy

$25, which is 267 photocopied pages.

The Safe Drinking Water Hotline can

provide copies of some of the

supporting documentation

electronically, phone: (800) 426–4791,

or (703) 285–1093, e-mail: Hotlinesdwa@epa.gov. EPA’s arsenic in

drinking water web page contains links

to the proposed and final arsenic

regulations and other supporting

material on line at http://www.epa.gov/

safewater/arsenic.html.

Regulated Entities

A public water system, as defined in

40 CFR 141.2, provides water to the

public for human consumption through

pipes or other constructed conveyances,

if such system has ‘‘at least fifteen

service connections or regularly serves

an average of at least twenty-five

individuals daily at least 60 days out of

the year.’’ A public water system is

either a community water system (CWS)

or a non-community water system

(NCWS). A community water system, as

defined in § 141.2, is ‘‘a public water

system which serves at least fifteen

service connections used by year-round

residents or regularly serves at least

twenty-five year-round residents.’’ The

definition in § 141.2 for a non-transient,

non-community water system

[NTNCWS] is ‘‘a public water system

that is not a [CWS] and that regularly

serves at least 25 of the same persons

over 6 months per year.’’ EPA has an

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2001 / Proposed Rules 20581

inventory totaling over 54,000

community water systems and

approximately 20,000 non-transient,

non-community water systems

nationwide. Entities potentially

regulated by this action are community

water systems and non-transient, noncommunity water systems. The

following table provides examples of the

regulated entities under this rule.

TABLE OF REGULATED ENTITIES

Category

Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industry ..................... Privately owned/operated community

water supply systems using ground

water or mixed

ground water and

surface water.

State, Tribal, and

local government.

State, Tribal, or local

government-owned/

operated water

supply systems

using ground water

or mixed ground

water and surface

water.

Federal government .. Federally owned/operated community

water supply systems using ground

water or mixed

ground water and

surface water.

The 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 this 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 as revised by the January arsenic

rule.

Table of Contents

I. Background and History Preceding This

Notice

A. What is covered in the January 22, 2001

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations Final Rule?

B. What did EPA’s Administrator

announce on March 23, 2001?

C. What does today’s action do?

II. Basis for Today’s Notice and Process for

Review of Rule

A. Why is EPA undertaking a further

review of the arsenic in drinking water

rule?

B. What will be the process for review of

the rule?

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA) of 1995

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq.

F. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

G. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments)

I. Executive Order 12866—Plain Language

Considerations

I. Background and History Preceding

This Notice

A. What is Covered in the January 22,

2001 National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations Final Rule?

In the Monday, January 22, 2001,

Federal Register, EPA issued final

regulations for arsenic and clarifications

to compliance and new-source

contaminants monitoring (66 FR 6976).

The Agency established a health-based,

non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant

Level Goal (MCLG) for arsenic of zero

milligrams per liter (mg/L) and an

enforceable Maximum Contaminant

Level (MCL) for arsenic of 0.01 mg/L

(i.e., 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L)). The

arsenic regulation was intended to

apply to non-transient non-community

water systems and to community water

systems.

In addition, on January 22, 2001, EPA

published clarifications for monitoring

and demonstration of compliance for

new systems or sources of drinking

water for inorganic, volatile organic, and

synthetic organic contaminants. The

regulations also recognized the Statespecified time period and sampling

frequency for new public water systems

and systems using a new source of water

for demonstrating compliance with

drinking water regulations. The effective

date for the new rule was, in general,

March 23, 2001, although the

compliance dates for affected systems

are years away.

B. What did EPA’s Administrator

Announce on March 23, 2001?

On March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16134), the

Administrator announced a 60-day

delay of the effective date for the arsenic

rule from March 23, 2001 to May 22,

2001. That extension was in accordance

with the memorandum of January 20,

2001, from the Assistant to the President

and Chief of Staff, entitled ‘‘Regulatory

Review Plan,’’ published in the Federal

Register on January 24, 2001 (66 FR

7702).

C. What Does Today’s Action do?

Today, EPA is proposing a further

extension of the effective date for the

arsenic rule, until February 22, 2002, to

allow additional time for

reconsideration of specific aspects of the

arsenic rule as explained in the next

section. EPA will consider comments

received during the comment period for

this notice which address the extension,

and EPA will decide whether to issue a

final extension of the effective date by

May 22, 2001. The compliance dates for

the arsenic rule remain unaffected by

today’s action.

II. Basis for Today’s Notice and Process

for Review of Rule

A. Why is EPA Undertaking a Further

Review of the Arsenic in Drinking Water

Rule?

The purpose of today’s proposed

extension to the effective date is to

allow additional time for review of the

science and costing analysis underlying

the arsenic in drinking water rule. EPA

understands and appreciates that the

question of setting a final arsenic in

drinking water standard is a

controversial one for several reasons.

From an economic standpoint, the new

regulation can be expected to have

significant impacts on a number of

drinking water utilities, especially those

serving less than 10,000 people in areas

of high naturally occurring arsenic.

Stakeholders have an understandable

desire to ensure that any new regulation

be based on accurate and reliable

compliance cost estimates. Stakeholders

also want to be confident that the health

risks associated with a new standard

have been appropriately evaluated and

are based on the best available science.

The Agency is committed to safe and

affordable drinking water for all

Americans. However, we want to be

sure that the conclusions about arsenic

in the final rule are supported by the

best available science. The Agency is

therefore moving rapidly to review

arsenic research and cost estimates

related to the arsenic standard so that

communities that need to reduce arsenic

in drinking water can proceed with

confidence that the new standard is

based on sound science and accurate

cost estimates. Independent review of

the science and technical analysis

behind the final standard will help

resolve questions that have arisen about

the health basis and costs of reducing

arsenic to 10 parts per billion in

drinking water.

20582 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2001 / Proposed Rules

B. What Will be the Process for Review

of the Rule?

EPA has considered a number of

possible mechanisms for conducting the

necessary reviews of the underlying

science and cost of compliance

estimates associated with the arsenic in

drinking water rule. EPA’s criteria for

conducting the review will be to ensure

that reviewers are recognized experts in

their fields; that reviewers are as

impartial and objective as possible; that

reviewers represent an array of

backgrounds and perspectives (within

their disciplines); that the review can be

conducted within a relatively short time

frame (i.e, within approximately four

months); and that the results of the

review be made publicly available for

comment. EPA is using the following

mechanisms for the review:

• Review of Health Effects of Arsenic

and Consideration of Key Issues

Associated with the Risk Analysis:

National Academy of Sciences’ National

Research Council.

• Review of Cost of Compliance

Estimates: Specially convened subgroup

of the National Drinking Water Advisory

Council.

In the case of the National Research

Council, EPA will rely on the same

independent judgment, objective

analysis, and scientific expertise that is

reflected in the March 1999 report,

entitled, ‘‘Arsenic in Drinking Water’’ in

reviewing the Agency’s interpretation

and application of existing arsenic

research as well as new studies of

arsenic health effects arsenic science

that have been published since the 1999

report. With regard to costing issues, the

National Drinking Water Advisory

Council has a charter, under the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, to advise the

Agency on an array of drinking water

issues associated with implementing the

national drinking water program and

has previously provided

recommendations to the Agency in the

development of the arsenic in drinking

water rule.

As its next step in the process for

review of the arsenic MCL, EPA will

prepare a proposal requesting comment

on a range of arsenic MCLs from 3ppb

to 20ppb. The purpose of this further

proposal is to provide for additional

public comment on the range of science

and cost issues related to the arsenic

rule. EPA will provide the results of the

independent science and cost reviews as

they become available. EPA will then

analyze the results of these reviews

together with any public comment to

reach a final decision on how to proceed

with regard to the arsenic MCL. As it

becomes available, further information

on this process will also be available on

EPA’s arsenic in drinking water

webpage at www.epa.gov/safewater/

arsenic.html and from the Safe Drinking

Water Hotline phone: (800) 426–4791,

or (703) 285–1093, e-mail: Hotlinesdwa@epa.gov.

III. 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.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ and, as such, has not

been submitted to OMB for review.

B. 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’’ (62FR19885,

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

regulation is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it not

economically significant.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA) of 1995

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 costeffective 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 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 is because the rule

imposes no enforceable duty on any

State, local or tribal governments or the

private sector. Thus today’s proposal is

not subject to the requirements of

section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For

the same reason, EPA also has

determined that this action contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. This action does not

impose any requirement on anyone.

Thus, there are no costs associated with

this action. Therefore, today’s rule is not

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2001 / Proposed Rules 20583

subject to the requirements of section

203 of UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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 action does not impose any

requirements on anyone and does not

voluntarily request information.

However, the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) has previously approved

the information collection requirements

contained in the existing regulations, 40

CFR parts 9, 141 and 142 under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has

assigned OMB control number 2040–

0231.

Copies of the ICR document(s) may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at

the Office of Environmental Information

Collection Strategies Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20460, by email at

farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling

(202) 260–2740. A copy may also be

downloaded off the internet at http://

www.epa.gov/icr. Include the ICR and/

or OMB number in any correspondence.

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.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking 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 governmental

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

USC 601(3)–(5). In addition to the

above, to establish an alternative small

business definition, agencies must

consult with the Small Business

Administration’s Chief of Counsel for

Advocacy.

For the purposes of assessing the

impacts of today’s rule on all three

categories of small entities, EPA

considered small entities to be systems

serving 10,000 or fewer customers. In

accordance with the RFA requirements,

EPA proposed using this alternative

definition for all three categories of

small entities in the Federal Register

(63 FR 7605, February 13, 1998),

requested public comment and

consulted with SBA regarding the

alternative definition as it relates to

small businesses. In the preamble to the

final Consumer Confidence Reports

(CCR) regulation (63 FR 4511, August

19, 1998), EPA stated its intent to

establish this alternative definition for

regulatory flexibility assessments under

the RFA for all drinking water

regulations and has thus used it in this

proposed rulemaking.

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. This proposed action does not

impose any requirements on anyone,

including small entities.

F. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law.

No. 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., materials 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 proposed rulemaking does not

impose any new technical standards.

G. 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. This rule does

not establish or change any

requirements. 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 solicits comment on this

proposed rule from State and local

officials.

H. 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 6, 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

20584 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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.

As a result of administrative review of

the final regulation published on

January 22, 2001, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is delaying the

effective date for the drinking water

regulation for arsenic. The purpose is to

reassess the scientific and cost issues

and seek further public input, as well as

to fully review the support available for

small systems. This proposal merely

allows people to comment on EPA’s

intent to review the final arsenic

regulation. 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 proposed rule from tribal

officials.

I. Executive Order 12866—Plain

Language Considerations

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write all rules in plain

language. EPA invites public comment

on how to make this proposed rule

easier to understand. Comments may

address the following questions and

other factors as well:

A. Has EPA organized the material to

suit your needs?

B. Are the requirements in the rule

clearly stated?

C. Does the rule contain technical

wording or jargon that is not clear?

D. Would a different format (grouping or

order of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing) make the rule easier to

understand?

E. Would more (but shorter) sections be

better?

F. Could EPA improve clarity by using

additional tables, lists or diagrams?

G. What else could EPA do to make the

rule easier to understand?

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Indian lands, Intergovernmental

relations, Radiation protection,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water supply.

Dated: April 18, 2001.

Christine Todd Whitman,

Administrator.

PARTS 9, 141, AND 142—PROPOSED

DELAY OF EFFECTIVE DATE

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, EPA proposes:

1. To delay the effective date of the

amendments to 40 CFR parts 9, 141, and

142 published January 22, 2001 (66 FR

6976) and delayed on March 23, 2001

(66 FR 16134) from May 22, 2001 to

February 22, 2002 except for the

amendments to §§ 141.23(i)(1) and (i)(2),

141.24(f)(15), (h)(11) and (h)(20),

142.16(e), (j), and (k) which are effective

January 22, 2004;

2. To withdraw the amendments to 40

CFR 141.6 published on March 23, 2001

(66 FR 16134); and

3. To amend 40 CFR part 141 as

follows:

PART 141— NATIONAL PRIMARY

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

a. 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.

Subpart A—[Amended]

b. Paragraph (j) of 40 CFR 141.6 added

at 66 FR 7061, January 22, 2001, and

amended on March 23, 2001, is further

amended by revising the last sentence to

read as follows:

§ 141.6 Effective dates.

* * * * *

(j) * * * However, the consumer

confidence rule reporting requirements

relating to arsenic listed in § 141.154(b)

and (f) are effective for the purpose of

compliance on February 22, 2002.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–10110 Filed 4–19–01; 3:10 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P