[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28342-28350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12878]



[[Page 28341]]

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

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: Delay of 
Effective Date; Final Rule

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

[[Page 28342]]


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

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 new-
source 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 
g/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 Secs. 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 Sec. 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, e-mail: [email protected] 
for general information and copies of arsenic documents. For technical 
inquiries, contact: James Taft, (202) 260-5519, e-mail: 
[email protected]. Contact the Water Docket at (202) 260-3027 to 
review the supporting documents and public comments on the proposed 
nine-month 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 
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.'' 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 regulated
           Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................  Privately owned/operated community water
                                supply systems using ground water or
                                mixed ground water and surface water.
State, Tribal, and Local       State, Tribal, or local government-owned/
 Government.                    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 22, 2001 (66 FR 6976) arsenic rule.

Abbreviations Used in This Rule

    Sec. --section
    g/L--micrograms per liter, same as ppb
    APA--Administrative Procedure Act
    BAT--Best available technologies
    CCR--Consumer confidence reports (Subpart O)

[[Page 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 non-community 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 g/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 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)). Until the January 2001 
arsenic regulation becomes effective, the existing arsenic regulation 
(i.e., no MCLG and an MCL of 50 g/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 g/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 g/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 
Sec. 141.6(k).
    While provisions of the January 2001 final rule will move arsenic 
into the standardized monitoring framework for inorganics (i.e., 
Secs. 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 Sec. 141.11(a) 
and (b) retain the existing monitoring and compliance requirements of 
Sec. 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

[[Page 28344]]

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 (Sec. 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 Sec. 142.16(e) and less information than now required 
for revising primacy for an existing contaminant per Sec. 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 Sec. 141.154(b) required CWSs that detect 
arsenic between 25 g/L and 50 g/L to include an 
informational statement about EPA's review of the arsenic standard 
beginning with the report for calendar year 1998 (see Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 141.154(b) to require additional 
information for CWSs that detected between 5 g/L and 10 
g/L starting with the calendar year 2001 report (due July 1, 
2002). The January 2001 rule (66 FR 6976) also added Sec. 141.154(f) to 
require reporting of health effects information for systems that detect 
arsenic between 10 g/L and 50 g/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 Secs. 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

[[Page 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 g/L to 20 g/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: [email protected].

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 risk-related analyses performed by EPA in 
support of its regulatory decision-making 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.national-academies.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 g/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 re-examine 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

[[Page 28346]]

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 g/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 g/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 g/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

[[Page 28347]]

important to recognize that the economic impact of the 80% decrease in 
the 50 g/L MCL to 10 g/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 g/L MCL. One 
commenter believes that the 5 g/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 g/L that is in 
effect until January 22, 2006, requires further analysis and 
discussion. The Agency will study this issue during the nine-month 
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 g/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 g/L 
standard. Although the Agency will ask for a review of the 3-20 
g/L range proposed in the June 22, 2000, proposed rule, the 
public may provide evidence to support a higher drinking water arsenic 
standard.

[[Page 28348]]

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 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 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.

[[Page 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.

[[Page 28350]]

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 Secs. 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:


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. 01-12878 Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P