28342 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142

[WH–FRL–6983–8]

RIN 2040–AB75

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications

to Compliance and New Source

Contaminants Monitoring: Delay of

Effective Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective

date.

SUMMARY: Today’s action delays the

effective date of the arsenic in drinking

water regulation published on January

22, 2001 (66 FR 6976), to February 22,

2002. The effective date for the arsenic

regulation was previously delayed 60

days on March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16134),

to May 22, 2001. The effective date for

clarifications to compliance and newsource contaminants monitoring in the

January 22 arsenic regulation remains

unchanged as January 22, 2004.

On March 20, 2001, EPA’s

Administrator publicly announced that

the Agency would take steps to reassess

the scientific and cost issues associated

with the arsenic rule published on

January 22, 2001, and seek further

public input on important issues with

that rule. On April 23, 2001, EPA

published in the Federal Register (66

FR 20580) a proposal to delay the

effective date of the arsenic rule for an

additional nine months in order to

conduct reviews of the science and

costing analysis and make the results

available for public review. Today’s

action extends the effective date for the

arsenic rule from May 22, 2001, to

February 22, 2002, in order to conduct

the reviews described in the April 23,

2001 Federal Register (66 FR 20580).

For now, the current standard of 50

μg/L remains the applicable arsenic

drinking water standard until the 2006

compliance date for the January 2001

final rule.

DATES: As of May 22, 2001, the effective

date of the National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations; Arsenic and

Clarifications to Compliance and New

Source Contaminants Monitoring,

amending 40 CFR parts 9, 141 and 142,

published in the Federal Register on

Monday, January 22, 2001, at 66 FR

6976 and delayed on Friday, March 23,

2001, at 66 FR 16134, is further delayed

for nine months, from the scheduled

effective date of May 22, 2001, to a new

effective date of February 22, 2002,

except for the amendments to

§§ 141.23(c)(9), 141.23(i)(1), 141.23(i)(2),

141.24(f)(15), 141.24(f)(22),

141.24(h)(11), 141.24(h)(20), 142.16(e),

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

effective on January 22, 2004. The

amendment to § 141.6 in this rule is also

effective February 22, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You can review copies of

the public comments received on the

proposed nine-month extension of the

effective date, EPA responses, and all

other supporting documents in docket

W–99–16–IV at the U.S. EPA Water

Docket (4101), East Tower Basement

room 57, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Safe Drinking Water Hotline, phone:

(800) 426–4791 or (703) 285–1093, email: hotline-sdwa@epa.gov for general

information and copies of arsenic

documents. For technical inquiries,

contact: James Taft, (202) 260–5519, email: taft.james@epa.gov. Contact the

Water Docket at (202) 260–3027 to

review the supporting documents and

public comments on the proposed ninemonth extension as well as EPA’s

responses to those comments.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Docket. For an

appointment to review the docket for

this nine-month extension of the

effective date, call 202–260–3027

between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern

Time, Monday through Friday and refer

to Docket W–99–16–IV. 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.

Regulated Entities

A public water system (PWS), 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.’’

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are community water systems

and non-transient, non-community

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 22,

2001 (66 FR 6976) arsenic rule.

Abbreviations Used in This Rule

§—section

μg/L—micrograms per liter, same as

ppb

APA—Administrative Procedure Act

BAT—Best available technologies

CCR—Consumer confidence reports

(Subpart O)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 28343

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations

CWS—Community water system

EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

FACA—Federal Advisory Committee

Act

FR—Federal Register

MCL—Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG—Maximum Contaminant Level

Goal

mg/L—milligrams per liter

NAS—National Academy of Sciences,

private entity chartered in 1863 to

advise the government

NCWS—Non-community water

system

NDWAC—National Drinking Water

Advisory Council, chartered under

FACA to advise EPA

NPDWR—National primary drinking

water regulation

NRC—National Research Council,

operating arm of NAS

NTNCWS—Non-transient noncommunity water system

NTTAA—National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

OMB—Office of Management and

Budget

POTWs—Publicly owned treatment

works (treat wastewater)

ppb—parts per billion, same as μg/L

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act

PWS—Public water systems

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act

TDS—Total dissolved solids

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act

U.S.—United States

WHO—World Health Organization

Table of Contents

I. Background and History

A. What is in EPA’s January 22, 2001, final

rule and what requirements will be affected

by a delay in the effective date?

1. Final arsenic regulations

2. Clarifications for monitoring and

compliance for new systems and new

sources

3. Primacy Requirements

4. Changes in consumer confidence reports

(CCR) for arsenic

B. What did EPA announce on March 20,

2001?

C. What did EPA propose on April 23,

2001?

D. Why did EPA propose further review of

the arsenic rule?

II. What will be the Process for Reviewing the

Arsenic Rule?

A. Overview

B. Approach to review of health science

C. Approach to review of cost of

compliance estimates

III. Response to Comments

A. Comments specific to the proposal to

further delay the effective date of the January

22, 2001, arsenic rule until February 22, 2002

1. Health concerns

2. Adequacy of existing scientific research

3. Comparison of January 22, 2001 standard

to WHO recommended standard

4. Adequacy of comment period

5. Procedural concerns

6. Review of underlying costs and health

effects associated with the rule

B. Comments not specific to the proposal

to further delay the effective date of the final

rule

1. Consumer confidence reports

2. Adverse impacts on small systems

3. Selection and Instruction of the expert

panels

4. Use of a sublinear dose response

relationship

IV. 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 (PRA)

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.

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 12898: Environmental

Justice

J. Congressional Review Act

K. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

V. References

I. Background and History

A. What is in EPA’s January 22, 2001,

Final Rule and What Requirements Will

Be Affected by a Delay in the Effective

Date?

1. Final Arsenic Regulations

In the Monday, January 22, 2001,

Federal Register (EPA 2001a), EPA

issued final regulations for arsenic and

clarifications to compliance and newsource contaminants monitoring (66 FR

6976). The Agency established a healthbased, 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)). Until the January 2001 arsenic

regulation becomes effective, the

existing arsenic regulation (i.e., no

MCLG and an MCL of 50 μg/L) issued

December 24, 1975 (40 FR 59566)

remains in effect. (Although EPA lists

drinking water standards in Title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (40

CFR) in units of mg/L, except where

noted, the Agency will refer to arsenic

concentrations in μg/L in this

preamble.) As part of the January 2001

arsenic regulation, EPA also listed the

approved analytical methods to measure

compliance, the best available

technologies (BAT) and small system

technologies that could achieve

compliance with the MCL, and the

public reporting requirements (changed

by revising the MCL to 10 μg/L). The

January 2001 rule contained an effective

date of March 23, 2001, and a

compliance date for this final arsenic

regulation of January 22, 2006, five

years after publication for all systems.

2. Clarifications for Monitoring and

Compliance for New Systems and New

Sources

On January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6976),

EPA also published regulations for

inorganic, volatile organic, and

synthetic organic contaminants (EPA,

2001a), and these regulations are not

affected by today’s action. Sections

141.23(i)(1), 141.23(i)(2), 141.24(f)(15),

and 141.24(h)(11) covered the

clarifications for monitoring and

compliance when a system fails to

collect the required number of samples.

Sections 141.23(c)(9), 141.24(f)(22),

141.24(h)(20), and 142.16(k) recognized

the State-specified 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.

EPA’s review of the arsenic rule does

not include a review of the clarifications

to compliance and new source

compliance monitoring regulations

issued on January 22, 2001 (66 FR

6976). Therefore, the ‘‘effective date for

purposes of compliance’’ for these

regulations remains January 22, 2004, as

specified in the January 2001 rule in

§ 141.6(k).

While provisions of the January 2001

final rule will move arsenic into the

standardized monitoring framework for

inorganics (i.e., §§ 141.23(a)(4)(i), (a)(5),

(c), (i)(1), (i)(2), and (k)(2), (k)(3)), the

compliance date for the revised arsenic

regulations remains January 23, 2006.

Until then, the revisions to § 141.11(a)

and (b) retain the existing monitoring

and compliance requirements of

§ 141.23(l)—(p) for arsenic.

3. Primacy Requirements

Section 1413(a)(1) of the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as

amended in 1996, requires States with

primary enforcement responsibility to

adopt drinking water regulations that

are no less stringent than EPA’s

regulations. By statute, States are

required to do so no later than two years

after EPA promulgates national primary

28344 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

drinking water regulations unless EPA

provides up to a two-year extension.

Specifically, States will be required to

specify the initial monitoring

requirements for new PWSs and new

sources (§ 142.16(k)) mentioned in the

previous section. In addition, States will

have to adopt the wording for

submitting more information for newly

regulated contaminants per § 142.16(e)

and less information than now required

for revising primacy for an existing

contaminant per § 142.16(j).

EPA is reviewing the final arsenic

regulation, and may ultimately decide to

revise the MCL published on January

22, 2001. EPA is also aware of the

practical implications of such possible

decisions on State primacy

requirements and State schedules for

implementing these changes. As a

result, EPA will be working closely with

States in this regard and will be

addressing the issue of State primacy

requirements in more detail in future

Federal Register actions.

4. Changes in Consumer Confidence

Reports (CCR) for Arsenic

The January 2001 revisions to the CCR

rule that included new reporting

requirements for arsenic will be delayed

until February 22, 2002. The final rule

issued for the consumer confidence rule

(63 FR 44512) on August 19, 1998, at

§ 141.154(b) required CWSs that detect

arsenic between 25 μg/L and 50 μg/L to

include an informational statement

about EPA’s review of the arsenic

standard beginning with the report for

calendar year 1998 (see § 141.152(a)).

Section 141.153(d)(4) requirements

stipulate that if arsenic is detected, the

CCR must list the MCL (i.e., 50 parts per

billion (ppb)), the highest contaminant

level used to determine compliance, the

range of detected levels (specified in

§ 141.153(d)(4)(iv)), and likely source(s)

of contamination. Section 141.153(d)(6)

requires that, for any data indicating

violations of the arsenic MCL (i.e., 50

parts per billion (ppb)), the CCR must

explain the length of the violation,

actions taken to address the violation,

and the potential adverse health effects

described in appendix A to subpart O.

The final arsenic rule (EPA 2001a)

issued on January 22, 2001 (66 FR

6976), made two changes to the annual

consumer confidence reports for

arsenic. The January 2001 arsenic rule

changed the informational reporting for

arsenic in § 141.154(b) to require

additional information for CWSs that

detected between 5 μg/L and 10 μg/L

starting with the calendar year 2001

report (due July 1, 2002). The January

2001 rule (66 FR 6976) also added

§ 141.154(f) to require reporting of

health effects information for systems

that detect arsenic between 10 μg/L and

50 μg/L beginning with the report due

July 1, 2002 and ending January 22,

2006, before the new MCL becomes

effective for compliance purposes.

Because of the review of the January

2001 arsenic rule, the reporting

requirements in §§ 141.154(b) and (f)

relating to arsenic will also need to be

reconsidered and may, at the least, need

to be amended to delay the due date for

reporting. EPA will be considering

changes to these CCR requirements for

arsenic as part of the forthcoming

arsenic rulemaking discussed in section

II of today’s preamble.

The effect of today’s 9-month delay of

the effective date is that, for the CCR

reports for calendar year 2001, CWSs

will continue to implement the CCR

requirements for arsenic contained in

the August 19, 1998 rule until February

22, 2002, rather than any of the new

requirements of the January 22, 2001

rule.

B. What Did EPA Announce on March

20, 2001?

On March 20, 2001, the Administrator

announced plans to seek independent

reviews of the science and cost

estimates supporting the arsenic

standard. The March 23, 2001, Federal

Register notice (66 FR 16134) delayed

the effective date for parts of the arsenic

rule by 60 days, from March 23, 2001,

to May 22, 2001 (EPA, 2001b). That

delay was in accordance with the

memorandum of January 20, 2001, from

the Assistant to the President and White

House Chief of Staff, entitled

‘‘Regulatory Review Plan,’’ published in

the Federal Register on January 24,

2001 (66 FR 7702).

C. What Did EPA Propose on April 23,

2001?

On April 23 (66 FR 20580), EPA

proposed (EPA, 2001c) a further delay of

the effective date for parts of 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

accepted public comments during a 14-

day comment period on the proposed

delay of the effective date.

D. Why Did EPA Propose Further

Review of the Arsenic Rule?

Consistent with the Administrator’s

public announcement on March 20, the

purpose of proposing a 9-month delay to

the effective date was to allow

additional time for review of the science

and costing analyses 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 and benefit 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.

II. What Will Be the Process for

Reviewing the Arsenic Rule?

A. Overview

EPA 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, and is also

considering establishing a third

mechanism to review the benefits of the

rule. The Agency’s criteria for

conducting the reviews are to ensure

that reviewers are recognized experts in

their fields and are as impartial and

objective as possible; that the reviews

can be completed quickly; and that the

results of the review be made publicly

available for comment. At present, EPA

is using two distinct mechanisms for the

review and will continue to consider

other steps to ensure timely and

thorough review of the standard.

• 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 Process for Developing

Cost of Compliance Estimates: Specially

convened subgroup of the National

Drinking Water Advisory Council.

In the case of the National Research

Council, EPA is relying on the same

independent judgment, objective

analysis, and scientific expertise that is

reflected in the March 1999 NRC report

(NRC, 1999), 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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 28345

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 plans

to release a proposal requesting

comment on a range of arsenic MCLs

from 3 μg/L to 20 μg/L. The purpose of

this proposal is to provide for additional

public comment on the range of arsenic

MCLs and the science, cost and benefit

and other analysis related to the arsenic

rule. EPA will also provide the public

an opportunity to comment on the

results of the independent science and

cost reviews. EPA then plans to analyze

the results of these reviews together

with any public comment on the range

of arsenic MCLs 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.

B. Approach to Review of Health

Science

Under a cooperative agreement with

EPA, on May 21 the National Academy

of Sciences (NAS) will convene a

subcommittee of the National Research

Council’s (NRC) Committee on

Toxicology to prepare a report updating

the scientific analyses, uncertainties,

and findings of the 1999 NRC report

‘‘Arsenic in Drinking Water.’’

Specifically, the subcommittee will

review relevant toxicological and

health-effects studies published and

data developed since the 1999 NRC

report, including the toxicological riskrelated analyses performed by EPA in

support of its regulatory decisionmaking for arsenic in drinking water.

The subcommittee will address only

scientific topics relevant to toxicological

risk and health effects of arsenic.

The subcommittee will meet

approximately three times to discuss

and evaluate issues and plans to

produce a consensus report in August

2001. The subcommittee will hear

presentations from government

agencies, industry, and other interested

or affected parties. Notices of meetings

open to the public are to be posted on

the website www.nationalacademies.org. EPA has asked NRC to

make its final report publicly available,

and the report will be available in EPA’s

arsenic rulemaking record.

C. Approach to Review of Cost of

Compliance Estimates

The National Drinking Water

Advisory Council (NDWAC) is chartered

under the Federal Advisory Committee

Act (FACA) to advise, consult with, and

make recommendations to EPA. The

Agency has asked the NDWAC to

convene a panel of nationally

recognized technical experts to review

the cost of compliance estimates

associated with the final arsenic rule. In

particular, the working group is to

review the costing methodologies,

assumptions, and information

underlying the costs applicable for

various categories of water system sizes

as well as the aggregated national

estimate of system costs underlying the

final arsenic rule. As a part of this

review, the group should evaluate

significant alternative costing

approaches or critiques where there is

adequate information upon which to

evaluate the basis for such alternate

estimates or approaches.

Working group members will be asked

to attend a series of meetings

(approximately three) over the summer

of 2001, participate in discussion of key

issues and assumptions at these

meetings, and review work products of

the working group. EPA has asked

NDWAC to ensure the working group

prepares a report and makes a

recommendation to the full NDWAC

based on their review of the national

cost estimates. The NDWAC, in turn,

would submit a report and make a

recommendation to EPA. All NDWAC

working group meetings and full

NDWAC meetings are open to the

public, and meeting information is

posted on the calendar accessible from

www.epa.gov/safewater. The report and

the final recommendations of the

NDWAC will be made available for

public review and comment by EPA and

will also be available in the arsenic

rulemaking record.

III. Response to Comments

A. Comments Specific to the Proposal

To Further Delay the Effective Date of

the January 22, 2001, Arsenic Rule Until

February 22, 2002

The Agency received over 12,000

comments on the April 23, 2001,

proposal to delay the effective date of

the January 22, 2001, final rule (66 FR

6976) another nine months until

February 22, 2002, to allow additional

time for reconsideration of the

provisions of this final rule. The

majority of the comments came from

private citizens sending electronic mail

(i.e., e-mail). Many of these commenters

did not support the extension and cited

several reasons for their position: their

concerns about the health hazards posed

by arsenic in drinking water and the

consequences of a delayed effective date

on implementation deadlines; their

belief that the decade or more of

scientific reviews, public hearings, and

other deliberations that supported the

revised arsenic MCL were sufficient and

that additional time is not warranted;

and their belief that the standard

published on January 22, 2001, is

appropriate and should not be delayed

further since the 10 μg/L MCL conforms

with the standard set by other entities,

such as the World Health Organization

(WHO). A few commenters believed that

the 14-day comment period on the April

23, 2001, proposal was too short to

obtain meaningful comment.

Other commenters, most of whom

represented the drinking water industry,

small system water providers, and

States, believed that a short delay to reexamine some of the consequences of

the final rule was warranted, especially

to carefully consider the financial

impact on small systems (i.e., systems

serving populations of 10,000 or fewer).

These commenters supported a

comprehensive and independent review

of the underlying science (health studies

used and interpretations of these

studies) and costing associated with the

arsenic final rule. These commenters

strongly supported the Agency’s plan to

use NAS (NRC) and NDWAC expert

panels.

The following sections respond to the

comments that were specifically

directed towards the issue of whether or

not to delay the effective date. Section

III.B. provides a more general response

to the many issues raised by the

commenters that were not directly tied

to the delay of the effective date.

1. Health Concerns

The overwhelming number of

commenters expressed concern about a

nine-month delay of the effective date of

the revised arsenic rule, due in part to

concerns about immediate health

impacts due to a delay in

implementation of the rule. EPA does

not believe that this short delay of the

effective date will result in health

effects of any kind for several reasons.

First of all, the delay EPA issues today

is very short; EPA has committed to

reviewing the science and cost issues

related to the revised final arsenic rule

as expeditiously as possible and no later

than early next year. Second, the

compliance date for the revised arsenic

rule was five years in the future even

under the January 2001 rule so that

there would have been no immediate

implementation of the new standard in

28346 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

any case. Moreover, EPA does not

anticipate that this short delay will

mean a delay in these compliance

deadlines.

2. Adequacy of Existing Scientific

Research

Many commenters expressed their

belief that extensive research supports

the 10 μg/L MCL published in the

January 2001 rule and that there is an

insufficient technical and procedural

basis for reconsidering the rule. Many of

these commenters urged the Agency to

simply allow the effective date to occur

on May 22, 2001, without impediment.

The Agency understands these

concerns, but wishes to allow time for

serious reconsideration of the arsenic

standard published on January 22, 2001.

A relatively short delay of the effective

date provides flexibility for fully

reconsidering the rule and a full range

of options consistent with SDWA

section 1412(b)(9) (concerning review

and revisions of existing drinking water

regulations). While the Agency agrees

that the January 2001 rule was

supported by extensive data and

analysis, the Agency also agrees with

other commenters who argued that this

rule is very important and the issues of

cost and science that are central to the

rulemaking deserve one final review

before concluding this rulemaking.

Thus, EPA believes that the ultimate

decision to be made in early 2002 will

be strengthened by allowing additional

public comment and a review by expert

panels from NAS and NDWAC. This

review includes a reconsideration of the

3, 5 and 10 μg/L MCLs suggested by the

commenters who oppose the extension.

The nine-month period provides a

unique opportunity for independent,

expert panels to review the Agency’s

actions in the final rule in connection

with both the underlying science and

the Agency’s compliance cost

assumptions and methodologies

contained in the final January 2001 rule.

This review also provides an

opportunity to examine information that

has only recently become available. In

particular, the Agency is aware of many

scientific articles that have become

available since the original report of the

NAS (NRC 1999) committee published

in March 1999.

3. Comparison of January 22, 2001,

Standard to WHO Recommended

Standard

Several commenters expressed

concerns that the Agency may, as a

result of a nine-month delay of the

effective date, revise the January 22,

2001, standard to a less stringent

standard that would not comport with

the WHO recommended standard of 10

μg/L. In this regard, the Agency noted in

the preamble of the January 2001 final

rule (66 FR 7025) that the

nonenforceable WHO guideline was not

set using the same health endpoints,

feasibility of implementation, or other

risk management factors that are

mandated under SDWA. Because the

U.S. drinking water standard for arsenic

was not developed using the basis

employed in setting the WHO guideline,

the Agency specifically noted in the

2001 final rule that a possible future

change in the WHO value would not

necessarily require a revision to EPA’s

MCL. For the same reasons, the

Agency’s MCL is not dependent on

arsenic standards established by the

European Union, or other countries or

international organizations. In any case,

the Agency has made no commitment to

revise the standard to a concentration

more or less stringent than the January

22, 2001, level.

4. Adequacy of Comment Period

The Agency believes that the

fourteen-day comment period was

sufficient to allow public comment on

the very narrow issue of whether or not

to provide a short delay of the effective

date. Because (1) the issue is so narrow

and the implications so minor in light

of the five-year compliance period and

the length of the delay; (2) the rule had

just been issued a few months ago after

many months of public input; (3) there

has been intense public attention

already devoted to this rulemaking: and

(4) there is an urgency to the upcoming

May 22 deadline, the Agency did not

feel that it was necessary to have a

longer comment period. Indeed, the

number of comments received (over

12,000) greatly exceeded the 1,000 or so

comments received on the June 2000

rule that proposed a range of new MCLs

for arsenic. The Agency helped facilitate

this strong and diverse response with

prior publicity and a targeted mailing.

Prior to publication of the April 23,

2001, proposal, EPA widely publicized

the proposed rule indicating EPA’s

intention to seek a delay, and performed

a direct mailing to approximately 1,000

individuals and organizations who had

expressed interest in the arsenic

rulemaking.

5. Procedural Concerns

One commenter suggested that the

Agency is obliged to provide an

opportunity for a public hearing(s) on

the proposed regulation to delay the

effective date, in accordance with

section 1412(d) of SDWA before taking

final action on the proposal. Section

1412(d) states that EPA must provide

opportunity for public hearing prior to

promulgation of regulations under

section 1412 of SDWA and consult with

NDWAC. Today’s action is merely a

short delay of the effective date of a

recently published national primary

drinking water regulation (NPDWR). As

such, it is, in essence, a continuation of

the rulemaking process to revise the

arsenic rule first commenced several

years ago. The whole purpose of this

delay is to allow for additional public

input and NDWAC consultation. The

Agency does not believe that it is

necessary or appropriate to provide for

extensive public comment hearings and

consultations on the issue of whether to

have further public debate and

consultation. Indeed, EPA provided

several opportunities for public

involvement, including hearings and

consulted with NDWAC prior to

issuance of the January 22, 2001,

NPDWR and will provide an

opportunity for a public hearing in

developing a final decision of whether

and how to revise the January rule,

based upon the findings of expert

review panels. As discussed earlier,

EPA’s review includes working with

NDWAC on some of the most

controversial aspects of the January rule.

As a result, while EPA does not believe

that it makes sense to hold a public

hearing for today’s action, the Agency

has fully complied with this provision

throughout this extended rulemaking on

arsenic and will continue to provide

public hearing opportunities and hold

NDWAC consultations before taking any

action to withdraw, modify or

supercede the January 2001 rule.

Another procedural question raised

by some commenters was whether or

not the Agency had met its obligations

pursuant to SDWA and Public Law 106–

377 (fiscal year 2001 appropriations act

for EPA), requiring the Agency to

promulgate a final rule by June 22, 2001.

These commenters contended that a

delay of the effective date would result

in the Agency missing that deadline and

urged the Agency to allow the rule to go

into effect on May 22, 2001. The Agency

believes that, independent of the

statutory deadline for promulgation,

EPA has the authority to establish

appropriate effective dates.

6. Review of Underlying Costs and

Health Effects Associated With the Rule

Several commenters expressed

support for delaying the effective date in

order to undertake the necessary

scientific and technical reviews. The

Agency agrees with the sentiment that

additional time for technical reviews of

elements of the rule is warranted. The

Agency also believes that it is also

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 28347

important to recognize that the

economic impact of the 80% decrease in

the 50 μg/L MCL to 10 μg/L affects about

4,000 PWSs, many of whom serve

populations of less than 3,300. Thus, the

per capita cost of the final MCL could

be significant at some affected PWSs.

The independent review proposed by

EPA provides more time to develop a

mitigation strategy, and the re-opening

of the comment period allows the public

to participate in this process and suggest

other options.

The Administrator announced her

intention to review the cost and science

underlying the rule on March 20, 2001.

The delay of the effective date for parts

of the final arsenic rule by nine months

will provide the Agency and the public

the benefit of the results of reviews by

independent expert panels and allow for

additional comment by affected

individuals and entities. The reviews

will be comprehensive and

independent, as suggested by

commenters. The results will be a

significant and important source of

information for the Agency to consider

as it makes a final decision. There will

be no adverse health impacts resulting

from this short delay of the effective

date within the five-year compliance

period. For these reasons, the Agency in

today’s rule delays the effective date of

the January 22, 2001, final rule until

February 22, 2002.

B. Comments Not Specific to the

Proposal To Further Delay the Effective

Date of the Final Rule

Some commenters also commented on

issues not specific to the April 2001

proposal to delay the effective date of

the final arsenic rule by nine months.

Some of these commenters resubmitted

or referenced the same or similar

comments that had been submitted in

response to the June 22, 2000, proposed

rule. A summary of these extra

comments follows. EPA does not intend

to provide a comprehensive response to

these comments because they are not

germane to the specific rule issued

today. However, many of these issues

will be discussed in an upcoming

proposal as well as in a future notice

providing the results of the reviews of

the expert panels referred to earlier.

1. Consumer Confidence Reports

Several commenters disagreed with

the consumer confidence reporting

(CCR) rule requirements in the revised

arsenic rule. Because of the high public

awareness about arsenic as a potentially

toxic contaminant and carcinogen that

may occur in drinking water, the

commenters are concerned that these

new requirements will unnecessarily

alarm consumers. The commenters also

noted that one of the reporting

requirements is set at 10% of the current

50 μg/L MCL. One commenter believes

that the 5 μg/L reporting limit is

appropriate, because of the consumer

right to know about contamination of

their drinking water.

Based on the recent interest and

awareness of the general public with

arsenic in drinking water, the Agency

understands that the requirement for a

system to provide health information for

arsenic contamination well below the

current MCL of 50 μg/L that is in effect

until January 22, 2006, requires further

analysis and discussion. The Agency

will study this issue during the ninemonth review of final rule and consider

public comment that may be received

during that review. The Agency plans to

make a final decision whether to revise

the arsenic CCR requirements as part of

its decision making on whether or not

to revise the MCL.

2. Adverse Impacts on Small Systems

Several commenters supporting the

delay until February 22, 2002, also

noted that the 2001 final rule requires

treatment changes that are too costly.

Commenters were concerned about

costs for small systems. Two

commenters also noted that timely

compliance with the 2006 date was in

jeopardy, because systems affected by

the 10 μg/L MCL cannot begin treatment

or other changes until the Agency takes

final action on the results of the review

of the final rule.

The Agency appreciates the support

for the delay to allow a review of costs

and other issues associated with

implementation of the 2001 final rule.

The Agency will be further considering

concerns raised by commenters with

respect to the issue of how to address

the impact of the nine-month delay on

the compliance dates in the final rule.

The statute sets out specific

requirements for establishing and

extending compliance dates and EPA

will comply with these provisions in

confirming or revising the January 2001

rule.

Many comments on the April 23,

2001, document were limited to a

statement that the costs of the January

2001 rule were too high, or could not be

borne within the 2006 time frame. A few

commenters resubmitted their

comments on the June 2000 proposed

rule. These comments on the proposed

rule were more detailed and cited

specific issues, such as point-of-use

devices, feasibility of treatment in arid

climates, landfill and waste disposal,

wastewater treatment burdens on

publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs), and impacts of chloride and

total dissolved solids (TDS).

Although the Agency has not yet

decided whether or how to change the

provisions of the January 22, 2001, final

rule, the issue of the costs of small

system treatment technologies is within

the purview of the forthcoming NDWAC

review of the cost models used in the

final rule. Subsequent to additional

public comment on this and other

issues, and to the NDWAC expert panel

review, the Agency will again address

the issues of costs to small systems.

3. Selection and Instruction of the

Expert Panels

Several commenters provided

detailed suggestions about how to select

members and charge the expert panels

in the review of the arsenic final rule.

Commenters requested that the charge

to the panel be very broad and include

all of the issues described in the

preamble of the final rule. The Agency

appreciates the suggestions for charging

the expert panels, and is providing the

public with several ways to participate

in the review of the final arsenic rule

process. For example, on May 4, 2001

(66 FR 22551), EPA requested

nominations of individuals to serve on

the cost working group of NDWAC

(EPA, 2001c). This document provided

an opportunity to advise EPA on the

selection of this expert panel. In

addition, many of these issues will be

discussed in the future proposed rule

that will request comment on a range of

arsenic MCLs and provide for additional

public comment on the range of science

and cost issues related to the arsenic

rule (66 FR 20582, April 23, 2001). In

the April 2001 document, the Agency

noted that the results of the

independent science and cost reviews

will be made public along with further

information on the review process.

Finally, much of this information will

be available on EPA’s drinking water

webpage at www.epa.gov/safewater/

arsenic.html and from the Safe Drinking

Water Hotline. Similarly, on April 17,

2001, the NAS provided notice about its

charge to the new arsenic committee on

its web site and solicited comment on

the provisionally named members of the

committee.

The Agency believes there is still a

strong basis to specify an arsenic MCL

significantly less than the current 50 μg/

L standard. Although the Agency will

ask for a review of the 3–20 μg/L range

proposed in the June 22, 2000, proposed

rule, the public may provide evidence to

support a higher drinking water arsenic

standard.

28348 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

4. Use of a Sublinear Dose Response

Relationship

Some commenters resubmitted their

comment on the June 2000 proposal that

the dose-response relationship for

arsenic health effects should use a

sublinear model rather than the model

used by EPA to specify the final MCL

and MCLG. These commenters believed

that a sublinear model would lead to

derivation of a higher MCL and possibly

a non-zero MCLG.

Although the Agency has not yet

decided whether or how to change the

provisions of the January 22, 2001, final

rule, the nonlinear dose relationship

mentioned by commenters is within the

purview of the forthcoming NAS review

of the science supporting the final rule.

Subsequent to this expert panel review,

and to public comment on this and

other issues, the Agency will determine

whether to adopt a nonlinear dose

relationship to calculate an MCLG and

MCL for arsenic.

IV. 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

under the Executive Order.

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’’ (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 and the Agency does not

have reason to believe that the

environmental health risks or safety

risks addressed by this action present a

disproportionate risk to children.

Nonetheless, EPA evaluated the

environmental health and safety effects

of arsenic in drinking water on children

as part of the January 2001 rule and its

proposal.

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 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, Tribal,

and local 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 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 rule 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 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 action

does not impose any requirements on

anyone and does not voluntarily request

information. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has previously

approved the information collection

requirements contained in the January

22, 2001, 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.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Aamended 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 28349

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 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 final rule on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

This action does not impose any

requirements on anyone, including

small entities, it merely extends the

effective date of the January 2001 rule.

F. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

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.,

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 final rulemaking does not

impose any new technical standards.

EPA’s analysis of the NTTAA’s

application to the arsenic rulemaking is

described in the June 22, 2000, proposal

at 65 FR 38971–38972 and the January

22, 2001, final rule at 66 FR 7051.

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 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. This rule does

not establish or change any

requirements. Thus, Executive Order

13132 does not apply to this rule.

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 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. 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 delay does not impose

any burden on tribes or tribal

governments. Thus, Executive Order

13175 does not apply to this rule.

I. Executive Order 12898:

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 establishes a

Federal policy for incorporating

environmental justice into Federal

agencies’ missions by directing agencies

to identify and address

disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects

of its programs, policies, and activities

on minority and low-income

populations. Today’s action does not

establish or change any requirements

and therefore does not have any

environmental justice implications.

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 become effective upon publication.

K. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

Section 553(d) of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d),

generally requires that a substantive rule

not become effective prior to 30 days

after publication. However, that section

allows rules to be effective immediately

if the rule relieves a restriction or for

other good cause found by the Agency

and published with the rule. Today’s

effective date delay is immediately

effective. EPA believes that this action

is justified because there is no need to

delay the effective date of a rule that

merely delays an effective date. This

rule has little, if any, substantive

impact. Thus, EPA believes that this

action is consistent with Section 553 of

the APA.

28350 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

V. References

NRC. 1999. Arsenic in Drinking Water.

Washington, DC. National Academy Press.

U.S. EPA. 2000. National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications

to Compliance and New Source

Contaminants Monitoring; Proposed Rule.

Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 121, p. 38888.

June 22, 2000.

U.S. EPA. 2001a. National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and

Clarifications to Compliance and New Source

Contaminants Monitoring; Final Rule.

Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 14, p. 6976.

January 22, 2001.

U.S. EPA. 2001b. National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and

Clarifications to Compliance and New Source

Contaminants Monitoring; Final Rule; Delay

of effective Date. Federal Register. Vol. 66,

No. 57, p. 16134. March 23, 2001.

U.S. EPA. 2001c. National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and

Clarifications to Compliance and New Source

Contaminants Monitoring; Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Register. Vol.

66, No. 78, p. 20580. April 23, 2001.

WH. 2001. Memorandum for the Heads and

Acting Heads of Executive Departments and

Agencies. Federal Register. Vo. 66, No. 16, p.

7702. January 24, 2001.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Indian lands, Intergovernmental

relations, Radiation protection,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water supply.

Dated: May 17, 2001.

Christine Todd Whitman,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the Environmental Protection

Agency takes the following actions:

PARTS 9, 141, AND 142—[DELAY OF

EFFECTIVE DATE]

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(c)(9),

141.23(i)(1) and (i)(2), 141.24(f)(15),

(f)(22), (h)(11) and (h)(20), and

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

effective January 22, 2004.

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

2. To amend 40 CFR part 141 as

follows:

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, as

added at 66 FR 7061, January 22, 2001,

and amended at 66 FR 16134, March 23,

2001, is further amended by revising the

last sentence to read 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. 01–12878 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P