Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 71843

REGULATIONS NOT ON PREVIOUS 1ST AND 2ND QUARTERLY REPORT—Continued

District/COTP Location Type Effective 

date 

05–02–005 ......................... Hampton Roads James River, VA ............................................. Safety zone .............................. 02/20/02 

COTP regulations for 2nd quarter.

Guam 02–007 .................... COCOS Swim, COCOS Lagoon Guam .................................... Safety zone .............................. 05/26/02 

Guam 02–013 .................... Commonwealth Port Authority, Saipan ...................................... Security zone ........................... 05/06/02 

Guam 02–014 .................... Commonwealth Port Authority, Saipan ...................................... Security zone ........................... 05/08/02 

Guam 02–015 .................... Port Authority of Guam .............................................................. Security zone ........................... 05/07/02 

Guam 02–016 .................... Port Authority of Guam .............................................................. Security zone ........................... 05/07/02 

Guam 02–017 .................... APRA Harbor, (Hotel Wharf) Guam .......................................... Security zone ........................... 05/28/02 

Jacksonville 02–076 .......... Indian River, New Smyrna Beach, FL ....................................... Safety zone .............................. 06/29/02 

Memphis 02–008 ............... LWR Mississippi River, M. 0 TO 3 ............................................ Safety zone .............................. 06/08/02 

Mobile 02–007 ................... Bayou Casotte, Mississippi ........................................................ Safety zone .............................. 04/14/02 

Mobile 02–008 ................... Highway 90 Bridge, Pascagoula River, MS .............................. Safety zone .............................. 04/26/02 

Mobile 02–009 ................... Bayou Casotte, Mississippi ........................................................ Safety zone .............................. 04/22/02 

New Orleans 02–018 ......... Almonaster Bridge, New Orleans, LA ........................................ Safety Zone ............................. 06/25/02 

New Orleans 02–019 ......... Mississippi Rive Gulf Outlet Channel ........................................ Safety Zone ............................. 06/24/02 

Tampa 02–064 .................. Tampa Bay, Florida ................................................................... Security zone ........................... 06/27/02

[FR Doc. 02–30617 Filed 12–2–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 501

Authorization to Manufacture and 

Distribute Postage Meters; Correction

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The Postal Service published 

in the Federal Register of November 18, 

2002, a final rule amending the 

regulations for inspecting postage meter 

production facilities that are located 

outside the continental United States. 

Inadvertently, some paragraphs of the 

regulation were designated incorrectly.

DATES: This correction is effective 

November 18, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Wilkerson, manager of Postage 

Technology Management, at 703–292–

3782, or by fax at 703–292–4050.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rule published in the Federal 

Register of November 18, 2002 (67 FR 

69478–69479), two paragraphs in 

section 501.2 were designated 

incorrectly.

§ 501.2 [Corrected] 

On page 69479, in the first column, 

the paragraph designated as (c)(i) should 

be correctly designated as (c)(1), and in 

the second column the paragraph 

designated as (c)(ii) should be correctly 

designated as (c)(2).

Dated: November 18, 2002. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 02–30650 Filed 12–2–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[FRL–7416–3] 

Withdrawal of Certain Federal Human 

Health and Aquatic Life Water Quality 

Criteria Applicable to Vermont, the 

District of Columbia, Kansas and New 

Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In 1992, EPA promulgated 

Federal regulations establishing water 

quality criteria for toxic pollutants for 

twelve States and two territories 

(hereafter ‘‘States’’), including Vermont, 

the District of Columbia, Kansas and 

New Jersey. These States have now 

adopted, and EPA has approved, human 

health and aquatic life water quality 

criteria for many of these pollutants. In 

today’s action, EPA is amending the 

Federal regulations to withdraw certain 

human health and aquatic life water 

quality criteria applicable to these 

States. EPA published the proposal to 

this rulemaking in the Federal Register

on March 26, 2001 and provided an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

proposed withdrawal of the criteria, 

because the States adopted certain 

criteria less stringent than the 

promulgated Federal criteria. Seven 

comments were received, but no 

changes were made to the proposed 

rulemaking and EPA is finalizing the 

proposed withdrawal. 

In addition, New Jersey adopted, and 

EPA approved, additional water quality 

criteria no less stringent than the 

promulgated Federal criteria. EPA is 

withdrawing these criteria without 

notice and comment rulemaking 

because New Jersey’s adopted criteria 

are no less stringent than the 

promulgated Federal criteria.

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 2, 2003.

ADDRESSES: The administrative record 

for this action in Vermont is available 

for public inspection at EPA Region 1, 

Office of Water, 1 Congress Street, Suite 

1100, Boston MA 02114–1505 during 

normal business hours of 9 a.m. to 5 

p.m. The administrative record for 

today’s action in the District of 

Columbia is available at EPA Region 3, 

Water Protection Division, 1650 Arch 

Street, Philadelphia PA 19103–2029 

during normal business hours of 9 am 

to 5 pm. The administrative record for 

today’s action in Kansas is available for 

public inspection at EPA Region 7, 

Water, Wetland and Pesticides Division, 

901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, 

Kansas 66101 during normal business 

hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The 

administrative record for today’s action 

in New Jersey is available for public 

inspection at EPA Region 2, Division of 

Environmental Planning and Protection, 

290 Broadway, New York, New York 

10007 during normal business hours of 

8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

Comments and EPA’s Response to 

Comments document are also available 

for review at EPA Headquarters under 

docket number W–00–23. These records 

are available for inspection and copying 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding

71844 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

legal holidays at the Water Docket, U.S. 

EPA, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave 

NW, Room B135, Washington, DC 

20460. For access to Docket Materials, 

please call (202) 566–2426 to schedule 

an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Gardner at EPA Headquarters, 

Office of Water (4305T), 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave NW., Washington, 

DC, 20460 (tel: 202–566–0386, fax 202–

566–0409) or e-mail 

gardner.thomas@epa.gov. Alternatively, 

for questions regarding Vermont, 

contact Bill Beckwith in EPA’s Region 1 

at 617–918–1544; for questions 

regarding the District of Columbia, 

contact Garrison Miller in EPA’s Region 

3 at 215–814–5745; for questions 

regarding Kansas, contact Ann Jacobs in 

EPA’s Region 7 at 913–551–7930; and 

for questions regarding New Jersey, 

contact Wayne Jackson in EPA’s Region 

2 at 212–637–3807.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Potentially Regulated Entities 

No one is regulated by this rule. This 

rule merely withdraws certain Federal 

water quality criteria applicable in these 

States. 

Background 

In 1992, EPA promulgated a final rule 

(known as the ‘‘National Toxics Rule’’, 

or ‘‘NTR’’) to establish numeric water 

quality criteria for 14 States that had not 

complied fully with section 303(c)(2)(B) 

of the Clean Water Act (‘‘CWA’’) (57 FR 

60848). The criteria, codified at 40 CFR 

131.36, became the applicable water 

quality standards in those 14 States for 

all purposes and programs under the 

CWA effective February 5, 1993. 

When a State adopts and EPA 

approves water quality criteria that meet 

the requirements of the CWA, EPA will 

issue a rule amending the NTR to 

withdraw its criteria. If the State’s 

criteria are no less stringent than the 

promulgated Federal criteria, EPA will 

withdraw its criteria without notice and 

comment rulemaking because additional 

comment on the criteria is unnecessary. 

However, if a State adopts criteria that 

are less stringent than the Federally 

promulgated criteria, but that in the 

Agency’s judgment fully meet the 

requirements of the Act, EPA will 

withdraw the Federally promulgated 

criteria after notice and opportunity for 

public comment. (see 57 FR 60860) 

In today’s action, EPA is amending 

the Federal regulations to withdraw 

certain human health and aquatic life 

criteria applicable to these States. In 

addition, this action makes certain 

nonsubstantive revisions to the 

regulatory language at 40 CFR 131.36 to 

reflect format changes in water quality 

standards that have occurred in the 

corresponding State regulations cited at 

40 CFR 131.36. 

Vermont 

On July 12, 1994, Vermont adopted 

revisions to its surface water quality 

standards (Appendix C, Vermont Water 

Quality Standards, effective August 1, 

1994). EPA Region 1 approved the 

State’s adoption of criteria for all toxics 

contained in the NTR on December 5, 

1996, because they are consistent with 

the CWA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA 

Region 1 requested that the Agency 

withdraw the Federal criteria applicable 

to Vermont for which the State now has 

numeric criteria.

In an earlier action, EPA withdrew 

Vermont from the NTR for certain 

human health and aquatic life criteria 

where the State adopted criteria that are 

no less stringent than the Federal 

criteria (see 65 FR 19659, April 12, 

2000). Today’s action addresses an 

arsenic criterion Vermont adopted that 

is less stringent than the corresponding 

Federal criteria in the NTR, but that 

nonetheless meets the requirements of 

the CWA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. In 

reviewing Vermont’s submission, EPA 

Region 1 concluded that the State’s 

calculation of the arsenic human health 

criterion for the consumption of fish 

(organisms only) of 1.5 μg/L was 

scientifically defensible. EPA published 

a proposed rule to remove this criterion 

in the Federal Register on March 26, 

2001 (66 FR 1643) and provided an 

opportunity for public comment, 

because the State’s adopted criterion 

was less stringent than the promulgated 

Federal criterion. No changes were 

made to the proposed rulemaking, and 

EPA is finalizing the proposed 

withdrawal as to Vermont. For a copy of 

the comments received and EPA’s 

responses, please see the ‘‘Response to 

Comments’’ document in the 

administrative record for this 

rulemaking. Today’s rule removes the 

arsenic human health criterion for the 

consumption of fish (organisms only) 

applicable to Vermont. Today’s rule 

leaves in place the Federal continuous 

concentration criterion of 0.08 μg/L for 

gamma-BHC (Lindane). The current 

adopted State criterion for this pollutant 

is apparently the result of a 

transcription error resulting in a 

criterion 10 times higher than the 

promulgated Federal criterion. EPA will 

initiate action to withdraw the Federally 

promulgated criterion for this pollutant 

when the State corrects the error in its 

standards. 

District of Columbia 

On March 4, 1994, the District of 

Columbia adopted revisions to its 

surface water quality standards 

[amended Chapter 11 of Title 21 DCMR 

pursuant to the authority set forth in 

Section 5 of the Water Pollution Control 

Act of 1984, D.C. Law 5–188, effective 

March 16, 1985, D.C. Code Section 6–

924 (1988) and Mayor’s Order 85–152], 

adopting human health criteria to 

protect from effects related to fish 

consumption and removing the 

emergency public water supply use 

designation previously identified for a 

segment of the Potomac River. EPA 

Region 3 approved these revisions on 

November 4, 1996 and April 18, 2000, 

because the revisions were consistent 

with the CWA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 131.11. 

For those waters that did not have the 

previously-designated emergency public 

water supply use designation, EPA has 

already acted. That is, EPA withdrew 

the District of Columbia from the NTR 

for human health criteria for the 

consumption of fish (organism only) 

because the District adopted criteria that 

are no less stringent than the Federal 

criteria (see 65 FR 19659, April 12, 

2000). For those waters that did have 

the previously-designated emergency 

supply use, EPA Region 3 requested that 

the Agency withdraw the Federal 

human health criteria applicable to the 

District. 

Today’s action withdraws the District 

from the NTR for human health criteria 

corresponding to the previously 

designated emergency public water 

supply use. The District removed this 

use and therefore has no need for 

human health criteria for water and 

organisms. EPA published a proposed 

rule to remove these criteria in the 

Federal Register on March 26, 2001 (66 

FR 1643) and provided an opportunity 

for public comment, because the 

removed Federal criteria were not 

replaced by District criteria. No changes 

were made to the proposed rulemaking, 

and EPA is finalizing the proposed 

withdrawal as to the District of 

Columbia. For a copy of the comments 

received and EPA’s responses, please 

see the ‘‘Response to Comments’’

document in the administrative record 

for this rulemaking.

Kansas 

On June 28, 1994, Kansas adopted 

revisions to its water quality standards 

(K.A.R. 28–16–28) regarding both 

human health and aquatic life criteria, 

and submitted them to EPA Region 7 for

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 71845

review and approval on October 31, 

1994. On February 19, 1998, EPA 

Region 7 approved certain new or 

revised water quality criteria for the 

protection of human health and aquatic 

life because they are consistent with the 

CWA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA 

Region 7 requested that the Agency 

withdraw the Federal criteria applicable 

to Kansas for which the State now has 

numeric criteria. Also, on June 29, 1999, 

Kansas adopted new and revised 

ambient water quality criteria for 

additional pollutants. They were 

submitted to EPA for review and 

approval on August 10, 1999. On 

January 19, 2000, EPA Region 7 

approved these additional criteria 

because they are also consistent with 

the CWA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA 

Region 7 requested that the Agency 

withdraw the Federal criteria applicable 

to Kansas for which the State now has 

numeric criteria. 

In an earlier action, EPA withdrew 

Kansas from the NTR for certain human 

health and aquatic life criteria where the 

State adopted criteria that are no less 

stringent than the Federal criteria. (See 

65 FR 19659, April 12, 2000) Today’s 

action addresses arsenic and cadmium 

criteria Kansas adopted that are less 

stringent than the corresponding criteria 

in the NTR, but that nonetheless meet 

the requirements of the CWA and EPA’s 

implementing regulation at 40 CFR 

131.11. In reviewing Kansas’s 

submission, EPA Region 7 concluded 

that the State’s calculation of an arsenic 

human health criteria for the 

consumption of fish (organisms only) of 

20.5 μg/L was scientifically defensible; 

that the State’s calculation of a 

cadmium freshwater aquatic life criteria 

(Criteria Maximum Concentration) of 

4.5 μg/l was scientifically defensible; 

that the State’s calculation of a 

cadmium freshwater aquatic life criteria 

(Criteria Continuous Concentration) of 

2.5 μg/L was scientifically defensible, 

and that these criteria meet the 

requirements of the CWA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

131.11. EPA published a proposed rule 

to remove these criteria in the Federal 

Register on March 26, 2001 (66 FR 

1643) and provided an opportunity for 

public comment, because the States’

adopted criteria were less stringent than 

the promulgated Federal criteria. No 

changes were made to the proposed 

rulemaking, and EPA is finalizing the 

proposed withdrawal as to Kansas. For 

a copy of the comments received and 

EPA’s responses, please see the 

‘‘Response to Comments’’ document in 

the administrative record for this 

rulemaking. Today’s rule removes the 

Federal human health criteria for the 

consumption of fish (organisms only) 

for arsenic and the Federal freshwater 

acute and chronic cadmium criteria for 

Kansas. 

New Jersey 

On August 4, 1994, New Jersey 

submitted to EPA Region 2 revisions to 

its surface water quality standards (New 

Jersey Administrative Code 7:9B), 

including aquatic life and human health 

criteria. New Jersey adopted aquatic life 

and human health criteria for many of 

the toxic pollutants contained in the 

NTR and reorganized certain designated 

use classifications and requirements 

pertaining to the Delaware River and 

Bay. EPA Region 2 approved the State’s 

criteria (with the exception of the State’s 

PCB human health criteria) on March 

17, 2000, because New Jersey’s numeric 

criteria for the protection of aquatic life 

and human health were consistent with 

the CWA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 131.11. EPA 

Region 2 requested that the Agency 

withdraw the Federal criteria applicable 

to New Jersey for which the State now 

has numeric criteria. 

For certain pollutants, New Jersey 

adopted water quality criteria for 

aquatic life and human health that are 

less stringent than the promulgated 

Federal criteria, but that nonetheless 

meet the requirements of the CWA and 

EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 

CFR 131.11. EPA published a proposed 

rule to remove these criteria in the 

Federal Register on March 26, 2001 (66 

FR 1643) and provided an opportunity 

for public comment because the State’s 

adopted criteria were less stringent than 

the promulgated Federal criteria. No 

changes were made to the proposed 

rulemaking, and EPA is finalizing the 

proposed withdrawal as to New Jersey. 

For a copy of the comments received 

and EPA’s responses, please see the 

‘‘Response to Comments’’ document in 

the administrative record for this 

rulemaking. Today’s rule removes the 

Federal criteria for these pollutants in 

New Jersey. 

In addition, EPA is removing the 

Federal criteria for a number of 

pollutants for which New Jersey has 

adopted water quality criteria for 

aquatic life and human health that are 

no less stringent than the promulgated 

Federal criteria. EPA has determined 

that New Jersey’s criteria are no less 

stringent than the promulgated Federal 

criteria either because they are identical, 

identical when rounded using 

conventional rounding techniques, or 

more stringent than the promulgated 

Federal criteria. Today’s rule removes 

the promulgated Federal criteria for 

these pollutants without notice and 

comment rulemaking because additional 

comment on the criteria is unnecessary 

(see 57 FR 60860). Section 553 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, U.S.C. 

553(b)(B) provides that, when an agency 

for good cause finds that notice and 

public procedures are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and 

opportunity for public comment. EPA 

has determined that there is good cause 

for removing the Federal criteria for 

these pollutants without prior proposal 

and opportunity for public comment 

because EPA has determined that if a 

State’s adopted and approved criteria 

are no less stringent than the 

promulgated Federal criteria, additional 

comment on the criteria is unnecessary. 

EPA finds that this constitutes good 

cause for issuing a final rule removing 

the Federal criteria for these pollutants 

without notice and comment. A list of 

the Federal criteria which had been 

promulgated for New Jersey by the NTR 

and are being removed by today’s action 

is included in the Docket for this 

rulemaking. 

In 1994, New Jersey reorganized 

certain use classification requirements 

pertaining to the Delaware River and 

Bay, including a definition of the 

appropriate points of application for 

criteria in these waters. EPA is making 

corresponding revisions to 40 CFR 

131.36(d)(3) to be consistent with the 

State regulations that the Federal 

regulations are intended to augment. In 

addition, on November 9, 1999, EPA 

amended the NTR criteria for PCBshuman health (columns D1 and D2 of 

the table at 40 CFR 131.36) to provide 

for a total criteria for this pollutant, in 

lieu of criteria for individual isomers 

(see 64 FR 61181). EPA is making 

corresponding revisions to 40 CFR 

131.36(d)(3) to be consistent with this 

change. These changes do not result in 

any substantive changes to the Federal 

criteria applicable to New Jersey. These 

revisions clarify the existing Federal 

regulations. 

Statutory and Executive Order Review 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action withdraws Federal 

requirements applicable to Vermont, the 

District of Columbia, Kansas and New 

Jersey and imposes no regulatory 

requirements or costs on any person or 

entity, does not interfere with the action 

or planned action of another agency, 

and does not have any budgetary

71846 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

impacts or raise novel legal or policy 

issues. Thus, it has been determined 

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to OMB review. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 because it is 

administratively withdrawing Federal 

requirements that no longer need to 

apply to Vermont, the District of 

Columbia, Kansas and New Jersey. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally requires 

an agency to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of a rule that is 

subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule 

imposes no regulatory requirements or 

costs on any small entity. Therefore, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title III of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4) 

establishes requirements for Federal 

agencies to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on State, Tribal, and 

local governments and the private 

sector. Today’s rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State, Tribal, or local governments or 

the private sector because it imposes no 

enforceable duty on any of these 

entities. Thus, today’s rule is not subject 

to the requirements of UMRA sections 

202 and 205 for a written statement and 

small government agency plan. 

Similarly, EPA has determined that this 

rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments and 

is therefore not subject to UMRA section 

203. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure State and 

local government officials have an 

opportunity to provide input in the 

development of regulatory policies 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 governments. This rule 

imposes no regulatory requirements or 

costs on any State or local governments, 

therefore, it does not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Again, this rule imposes no regulatory 

requirements or costs on any Tribal 

government. It does 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, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000). 

Executive Order 13045—Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant and EPA has 

no reason to believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

Executive Order 13211—Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

The requirements of section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply because this rule 

does not involve technical standards. 

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) and will be 

effective on January 2, 2003.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 

Environmental protection, Indians—

lands, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control.

Dated: November 26, 2002. 

Christine Todd Whitman, 

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble 40 CFR part 131 is amended 

as follows:

PART 131—WATER QUALITY 

STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 131 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

§ 131.36 [Amended] 

1. Section 131.36 is amended by: 

a. Revising the table in paragraph 

(d)(2)(ii). 

b. Revising the table in paragraph 

(d)(3)(ii). 

c. Revising the table in paragraph 

(d)(5)(ii). 

d. Revising the table in paragraph 

(d)(9)(ii). 

The revisions read as follows:

§ 131.36 Toxics criteria for those states 

not complying with Clean Water Act Section 

303(c)(2)(B). 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 71847

Use classification Applicable criteria 

1. Classes A1, A2, B1, B2, B3 ................................................................. These classification are assigned the criterion in: 

Column B2—#105. 

* * * * *

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * *

Use classification Applicable criteria 

1. Freshwater Pinelands, FW2 ................................................................. These classifications are each assigned the criteria in: 

i. Column B1—#2, 4, 5a, 5b, 6–11, 13. 

ii. Column B2—#2, 4, 5a, 5b, 6–10, 13. 

iii. Column D1— #125b at a 10¥6 risk level. 

iv. Column D2—#125b at a 10¥6 risk level. 

v. Column D2—#23, 30, 37, 42, 87, 89, 93 and 105 at a 10¥5 risk 

level. 

2. PL (Saline Water Pinelands), SE1, SE2, SE3, SC, Delaware Bay 

Zone 6.

These classifications are each assigned the criteria in: 

i. Column C1—#2, 4, 5b, 6–11, 13. 

ii. Column C2—#2, 4, 5b, 6–10, 13. 

iii. Column D1— #125b at a 10¥6 risk level. 

iv. Column D2—#125b at a 10¥6 risk level. 

v. Column D2—#23, 30, 37, 42, 87, 89, 93 and 105 at a 10¥5 risk 

level. 

3. Delaware River Zones 1C, 1D, 1E, 2, 3, 4, and 5 .............................. i. Column B1—none. 

ii. Column B2—none. 

iii. Column D1—none. 

iv. Column D2—none. 

4. Delaware River Zones 3, 4, and 5 ....................................................... These classifications are each assigned the criteria in: 

i. Column C1—none. 

ii. Column C2—none. 

iii. Column D2—none. 

* * * * *

(5) * * * 

(ii) * * *

Use classification Applicable criteria 

1. Class C ................................................................................................. This classification is assigned the additional criteria in: 

Column B2; #10, 118, 126. 

* * * * *

(9) * * * 

(ii) * * *

Use classification Applicable criteria 

1. Sections (2)(A), (2)(B), (2)(C), (4) ........................................................ These classifications are each assigned criteria as follows: 

i. Column B1, #2. 

ii. Column D2, #12, 21, 29, 39, 46, 68, 79, 81, 86, 93, 104, 114, 118. 

2. Section (3) ............................................................................................ This classification is assigned all criteria in: 

Column D1, all except #1, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 22, 33, 36, 39, 44, 75, 77, 

79, 90, 112, 113, and 115. 

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 02–30599 Filed 12–2–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2002–0278; FRL–6824–2] 

Pesticides; Tolerance Exemptions for 

Active and Inert Ingredients for Use in 

Antimicrobial Formulations (FoodContact Surface Sanitizing Solutions)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to add a new section to part 180 

which lists the pesticide chemicals that 

are exempt from the requirement of a 

tolerance when used in food-contact 

surface sanitizing solutions. The initial 

list of exempt pesticide chemicals in the 

new section is duplicated from the Food 

and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 

regulations in 21 CFR 178.1010. EPA is 

also changing FDA’s naming