[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20580-20584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10110]



[[Page 20579]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142



National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications 
to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 20580]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 hand-delivered 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 [email protected]. 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: 
[email protected]. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 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, non-community water systems. The 
following table provides examples of the regulated entities under this 
rule.

                       Table of Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Examples of potentially
                 Category                        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 Secs. 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 (g/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 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. 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.

[[Page 20582]]

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: [email protected].

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 cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Today's 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

[[Page 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 
[email protected], 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

[[Page 20584]]

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 Secs. 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:


Sec. 141.6  Effective dates.

* * * * *
    (j) * * * However, the consumer confidence rule reporting 
requirements relating to arsenic listed in Sec. 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