[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63204-63208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30102]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 0134-1134; FRL-7112-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[[Page 63205]]


ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the state of Missouri for the Doe Run primary 
lead smelters in Herculaneum and Glover, Missouri (Doe Run-Herculaneum 
and Doe Run-Glover). The SIP submitted by the state satisfies the 
applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and demonstrates 
attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
lead for the Doe Run-Herculaneum area. Approval of this revision will 
ensure that the Federally approved requirements are current and 
consistent with state regulations and requirements. The revision for 
Doe Run-Glover merely reflects a change in ownership of the smelter. If 
EPA receives adverse comments, the comments will be addressed in the 
subsequent final rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to James F. Hirtz, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Copies of documents relative to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the above-listed 
Region 7 location. Interested persons wanting to examine these 
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours 
in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hirtz at (913) 551-7472, or E-
Mail him at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever, ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides 
additional information by addressing the following questions:

Background and Submittal Information

What is a SIP?
What is the background for Doe Run-Herculaneum?
What is the Federal Approval process for a SIP?
What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?
What is being addressed in this document?

EPA's Proposed Actions

Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met under 
section 172 of the CAA?
What actions are we proposing today?

Background and Submittal Information

What Is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop 
air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state 
air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards 
established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under 
section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria 
pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, 
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to 
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally enforceable SIP. 
Each Federally approved SIP protects air quality primarily by 
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be 
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents 
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring 
networks, and modeling demonstrations.

What Is the Background for Doe Run-Herculaneum?

    On June 3, 1986, EPA issued a call for a revision to the Missouri 
SIP in response to violations of the NAAQS for lead in the vicinity of 
the Doe Run primary lead smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri. Doe Run-
Herculaneum is the largest primary lead smelter in the United States 
with a production capacity of 250,000 tons of refined lead per year. 
The NAAQS for lead is 1.5 micrograms (g) of lead per cubic 
meter (m\3\) of air averaged over a calendar quarter. The state 
submitted a SIP revision on September 6, 1990, and EPA granted limited 
approval for Missouri's 1990 SIP revision on March 6, 1992 (57 FR 
8076), pending submission of a supplemental SIP revision meeting the 
applicable requirements (Part D of Title I of the CAA as amended in 
1990).
    A revised SIP meeting the part D requirements was subsequently 
submitted in 1994. The plan established June 30, 1995, as the date by 
which the Herculaneum area was to have attained compliance with the 
lead standard. However, the plan did not result in attainment of the 
standard, and observed lead concentrations in the Herculaneum area 
continued to show violations of the standard. Therefore, on August 15, 
1997, after taking and responding to public comments, EPA published a 
document in the Federal Register finding that the Herculaneum 
nonattainment area had failed to attain the lead standard by the June 
30, 1995, deadline (62 FR 43647).
    On January 10, 2001, Missouri submitted a revised SIP to EPA for 
the Doe Run-Herculaneum area. The SIP revision was found complete on 
January 12, 2001. The SIP establishes August 14, 2002, as the 
attainment date for the area and satisfies the part D requirements of 
the CAA. The revised plan also contains a control strategy to address 
the violations of the NAAQS which occurred after implementation of the 
control measures in the 1995 SIP revision. EPA believes that the 
dispersion and receptor modeling demonstrate that the selected control 
measures will result in attainment of the NAAQS for lead.

What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the 
Federally enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations 
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. 
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public 
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking 
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the 
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide 
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed 
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are 
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by 
us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA 
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally 
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and 
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations 
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR 
outright but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we 
have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me?

    Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is 
incorporated into the Federally approved SIP is primarily a state 
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we 
are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens 
are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in 
section 304 of the CAA.

[[Page 63206]]

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

Doe Run-Herculaneum

1. Control Strategy
    As required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart N, each SIP must contain 
legally enforceable compliance schedules and provide for compliance as 
soon as practicable. The Doe Run-Herculaneum SIP calls for full 
implementation of the control strategy by July 31, 2002. Implementation 
of the control strategy will result in approximately a 99 percent 
reduction in fugitive lead emissions from sources that are modeled as 
contributing significantly to nonattainment in the Herculaneum area.
    The SIP contains two regulatory documents: (1) A Missouri 
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) lead rule, (10 CSR 10-6.120) 
adopted by Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC) on December 7, 
2000, containing emission limits and a Work Practice Manual which 
specifies operating procedures for specific plant processes at the Doe 
Run-Herculaneum facility; and (2) an executed Consent Judgment between 
the state of Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), 
and MACC with Doe Run-Herculaneum. This judgment sets forth the 
administrative requirements for the implementation of the control 
measures at the Doe Run-Herculaneum facility. The plan includes 
contingency measures to be implemented within 6 months following a 
violation of the lead standard, after the attainment date of August 14, 
2002. The reader is referred to the EPA prepared technical support 
document for a more complete discussion of the specific control 
measures to be implemented in the SIP.
2. Attainment Demonstration
    Section 192(a) of the CAA requires that SIPs must provide for 
attainment of the lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no 
later than five years from the date of an area's nonattainment 
designation. This five-year period also applies as the new attainment 
date following a finding of failure to attain the lead NAAQS. (See 
sections 179(d)(3), 172(a)(d), and 192(a).) MDNR submitted a revised 
SIP that met the part D requirements in 1994, and which established 
June 30, 1995, as the new attainment date for the Herculaneum area. 
Violations of the NAAQS for lead were still observed and EPA published 
a notice in the Federal Register on August 15, 1997, finding that the 
Herculaneum area failed to attain the lead standard. The determination 
became effective on September 14, 1997. The SIP submitted established 
an attainment date of August 14, 2002, which is within the statutory 
five-year period. EPA has determined that the state's attainment date 
is as expeditious as practicable.
    In support of the revision to the Doe Run-Herculaneum lead SIP, a 
dispersion and receptor modeling methodology was developed to predict 
ambient lead concentrations. The dispersion model that was chosen was 
the steady state EPA Gaussian plume Industrial Source Complex Short-
Term model (ISCST3, version 99155). The receptor modeling that was 
chosen was Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) receptor model version 7. The 
CMB model was used to qualititavely evaluate the dispersion model to 
increase confidence in the modeling results and the control strategy.
    The 2000 SIP revision emission inventory relies heavily on source 
testing and the utilization of the CMB receptor model to provide 
probable source contribution estimates (SCE) for the major source 
categories. These categories were defined by common chemistry of the 
source's particulate emissions. The model is a ``best fit'' statistical 
model that estimates the most probable source contribution by comparing 
the finger prints, or characteristics, of the emission sources with the 
measured ambient values.
    Actual value dispersion modeling was conducted in order to (1) 
determine the model's ability to replicate actual lead concentrations 
monitored during the study, and thereby serve as a basis for developing 
future control strategies, and (2) provide a set of SCEs for 
reconciliation with those obtained from the CMB receptor model. The 
actual value modeling was conducted with the actual emission rates, 
stack parameters, and local meteorological data collected during the 
study period. The background value of 0.13 g/m\3\ was added to 
the predicted air dispersion concentrations. The maximum predicted 
concentration by the ISCST3 model, including background, is 1.456 
g/m\3\, which is below the NAAQS for lead at 1.5 g/
m\3\.
3. Emission Inventory and Air Quality Data
    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that nonattainment plan 
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of 
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the 
nonattainment area.
    Development of a comprehensive and accurate emissions inventory was 
necessary to support modeling and control strategy efforts. An hourly 
emissions inventory was developed in order to provide input to the 
ISCST3 dispersion model. These rates were estimated using equations 
developed from source testing at the facility or from published 
emission factors.
    Speciated emissions data was necessary to provide input to the CMB 
receptor model. Where possible, these data were obtained during source 
sampling efforts to identify fugitive emission sources located at the 
facility. In other cases, it was obtained from grab samples collected 
at various locations within the facility or from representative 
sources.
    The state submittal provides a historical summary of the air 
quality from 1982 through the second calendar quarter of 2000. The 
average quarterly ambient lead concentrations at several monitors 
continue to remain above the NAAQS. The reader is referred to the EPA 
prepared technical support document for a summary of ambient monitoring 
data collected for the Doe-Run Herculaneum site.
4. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including Reasonable 
Available Control Technology (RACT)
    The submittal must contain provisions to assure that RACM 
(including RACT) are implemented (see section 172(c)(1) of the CAA). 
(See 57 FR 13498 and 57 FR 13560 dated April 1, 1992, for EPA's 
interpretation of the RACM and RACT requirements.) Section 172(c)(1) of 
the CAA requires the implementation of all RACM which include emissions 
reduction through the adoption of RACT as expeditiously as practicable 
for all areas in nonattainment to attain the national primary ambient 
air quality standard. EPA interprets this requirement to impose a duty 
on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control measures 
and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available to 
demonstrate attainment for the area. EPA believes that measures which 
do not advance the date for attainment need not be implemented.
    In the previous SIP (1993), Doe Run-Herculaneum prepared a RACT/
RACM evaluation, and the plant has not changed significantly nor is it 
expected to significantly increase its emissions through production 
increases. All RACT/RACM measures were implemented as part of the 
previous SIP. In addition, the requirements under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TTT, the Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
Standards for Primary Lead Smelters, now apply for Doe Run-Herculaneum. 
This MACT required the preparation and use of a

[[Page 63207]]

standard operating procedures manual for all baghouses used to control 
process, process fugitive, or fugitive dust emission sources for lead. 
We note that Missouri is currently in the process of addressing a 
number of issues relating to the delivery of lead concentrate to the 
Doe Run-Herculaneum facility for processing, and is considering 
measures to decrease or eliminate lead fugitive emissions from truck 
hauling. Missouri has analyzed the air quality impact of the delivery 
system (primarily involving the transport and unloading of concentrate 
from trucks) and has determined that the air quality impacts of 
fugitive emissions from this process are minimal. Missouri also reran 
the attainment demonstration modeling to determine the impact, if any, 
due to the contribution of fugitive emissions from the truck hauling 
operation. Missouri concluded that the air quality impact was 
insignificant, and did not impact the attainment demonstration. 
Missouri continues to address other environmental concerns relating to 
truck hauling, primarily relating to soil contamination. However, based 
on the state's conclusions that the air quality impacts are negligible, 
and therefore further air pollution controls would not expedite 
attainment, EPA does not believe that further consideration of the 
emissions associated with truck hauling is necessary for purposes of 
the CAA requirements regarding RACT/RACM. In light of the above MACT 
requirements as well as enforceable limitations for fugitive emissions 
and the installation of process controls imposed by the state rule and 
Consent Judgement referenced previously, it would be unnecessary for 
EPA to have Doe Run-Herculaneum reevaluated RACT/RACM requirements. An 
assessment of these control measures with dispersion and receptor 
modeling indicate no additional measures will expedite attainment.
5. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
    Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires that the SIP must provide for 
RFP as defined in section 171(1) of the CAA. Section 171(1) defines RFP 
as annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air 
pollutants as are required by Part D, or may reasonably be required by 
EPA to ensure attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable 
date. Part D does not further require specific RFP measures for lead.
    Doe Run-Herculaneum has demonstrated RFP as required by section 
172(c)(2) of the CAA. For example, Doe Run-Herculaneum is under a 
compliance schedule, required by regulation and by the Consent 
Judgement, for implementing (1) installation of emission control 
equipment; (2) enclosure and ventilation projects to reduce lead 
emissions; (3) process throughput restrictions and hours of operation 
limitation; (4) work practice standards; and (5) contingency measures. 
EPA does not believe that additional incremental reductions are needed 
to meet the RFP requirement, since all controls to reduce lead 
emissions are to be implemented within the year, and must be fully 
implemented by July 31, 2002. The Work Practice Manual establishes 
process limits and control requirements for the plant and provides a 
guide to plant operators on how to minimize emissions from certain 
plant operations. This manual was incorporated into the lead rule (10 
CSR 10-6.120), and adopted by the MACC on December 7, 2000, with the 
effective date of the rule being March 30, 2001.
6. New Source Review (NSR)
    Part D of Title I of the CAA requires that the submittal include a 
permit program for the construction and operation of new and modified 
major stationary sources. Missouri rule 10 CSSR 10-6.020 identifies the 
current specific descriptions of the lead nonattainment areas in 
Missouri, including the area in which the Doe Run facility is located. 
Rule 10 CSR 10-6.020 is utilized in conjunction with Missouri rule 10 
CSR 10-6.060 which requires a permit for construction of, or major 
modification to, an installation with potential to annually emit one 
hundred (100) tons or more of a nonattainment pollutant, or a permit 
for a modification at a major source with potential to annually emit 
one thousand two hundred (1,200) pounds of lead. These rules have 
previously been approve by EPA as part of the SIP.
7. Contingency Measures
    Pursuant to section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency measures have 
been prepared that can be implemented if EPA determines that the 
nonattainment area has failed to make reasonable further progress or 
fails to attain the NAAQS by the statutory deadline.
    The state submission specifies an attainment date for the 
Herculaneum area of August 14, 2002, as set in the state SIP. If the 
area has a violation of the NAAQS during this quarter (July 1 to 
September 30, 2002), or any quarter thereafter, the contingency 
controls will be implemented after Doe Run-Herculaneum is notified by 
EPA and/or MDNR. Contingency measures which include enclosures and 
installing additional process controls will be implemented within 6 
months following the calendar quarter in which the violation occurred.
    In the event there is a second violation of the quarterly lead 
standard of 1.5 /m3, after implementation of the 
initial contingency measures, Doe Run-Herculaneum has also agreed to 
curtail production utilizing one of three emission and/or production 
curtailing methods: Method (1), reduce main non-stack emissions by 20 
percent; Method (2), limit production to 50,000 short tons/quarter of 
refined lead produced; and, Method (3), adopt Method 1 and limit 
production of refined lead production based upon the following formula:

P = 50,000 + (500  x  (1-A/E)  x  100)

P = refined lead production in short tons/quarter
A = The aggregate actual quarterly emissions from all fugitive and 
stack lead emission sources at the facility in tons; except from the 
main stack (30001)
E = the aggregate estimated quarterly emissions from all fugitive and 
stack lead emission sources at the facility in tons; except from the 
main stack (30001); where A/E can't be less than .8 or more than 1.0.

    Doe Run-Herculaneum will also maintain current bids on the 
materials necessary to implement each contingency measure. Doe Run-
Herculaneum also may substitute any such controls if Doe Run-
Herculaneum can demonstrate to MDNR and EPA that the alternative 
control measures would equal or exceed controls in the current SIP. 
Changes to these contingency measures would require a public hearing at 
the state level, and EPA approval as a formal SIP revision. These 
measures will help ensure compliance with the lead NAAQS and meet the 
requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
8. Enforceability
    All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by 
the state and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, 
and 57 FR 13556). The state submittal includes a Consent Judgement and 
the lead rule (10 CSR 10-6.120). The lead rule also incorporates a Work 
Practice Manual, which specifies operating procedures for specific 
plant processes.
    The state submittal includes a Consent Judgment entered into by the 
state and the Company which contains all of the control and contingency 
measures with enforceable dates for implementation. Control measures 
employed by Doe Run-Herculaneum

[[Page 63208]]

involve engineering modifications to the facility which include: 
Enclosure projects, improved ventilation systems being routed to 
stacks, improved material handling conveyors, and installation of air 
pollution control equipment (baghouses). The Company expects to spend 
approximately $8,500,000 on these projects to control and reduce 
fugitive air emissions of lead that are affecting the ambient air 
standard for lead in the Herculaneum area. These control measures will 
be implemented by July 31, 2002.

Doe Run-Glover

    The Missouri SIP submission contains a state rule and a Consent 
Decree which pertain to the Doe Run Company's Glover lead smelter in 
Iron County, Missouri. Until 1998, this facility was owned by the 
ASARCO Company. Due to the change in ownership, the state found it 
necessary to revise a state rule and the Consent Decree which referred 
to the facility by ownership name.
    The state rule, 10 CSR 10-6.120, ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead 
From Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations,'' was revised in 
paragraph (2)(A) to change the owner name from ASARCO to Doe Run 
Company. No other revisions pertaining to this facility were made in 
this rule revision. This revision was adopted by the Missouri Air 
Conservation Commission on December 7, 2000, and became effective in 
the state on March 30, 2001.
    There was also a SIP-approved Consent Decree for this facility with 
ASARCO. This Consent Decree was also revised to reflect the change in 
ownership and to update certain provisions. These changes included: (1) 
Recognizing that the required capital improvements made by ASARCO had 
indeed already been made; (2) adding language that will terminate the 
Consent Decree upon redesignation of the Glover area attainment with 
the understanding that a new enforceable agreement will be in place at 
that time to ensure continued operation of the controls. This is 
acceptable to EPA since a maintenance plan would be required prior to 
any redesignation of the area to attainment, and the maintenance plan 
would contain all requirements, including enforceable requirements of 
any document which replaces the Consent Decree, which are necessary to 
ensure continued attainment of the area for the lead NAAQS; and (3) 
provision was added which allows the Consent Decree to be modified if 
both parties agree, or if there is a change in ownership. These 
provisions were added to avoid having to go back to court to amend the 
Consent Decree.

EPA's Proposed Actions

Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met Under 
Section 172 of the CAA?

    The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP 
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also 
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In 
addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical 
support document which is part of this document, the revision meets the 
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and 
implementing regulations and part D and is consistent with the guidance 
set forth in the ``State Implementation Plans for Lead Nonattainment 
Areas; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (58 FR 67748).

What Actions Are We Proposing Today?

    EPA is proposing to find that the Doe Run-Herculaneum nonattainment 
area SIP submitted by Missouri on January 10, 2001, meets the 
requirements of section 110, and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51. 
EPA is also proposing to approve the SIP submission which relates to 
the Doe Run-Glover facility which is described above.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, 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 by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not 
have Federalism implications because it does 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 governments, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, 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. This proposed rule does not impose 
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: November 23, 2001.
Nat Scurry,
Acting Regional Administration, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 01-30102 Filed 12-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P