Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0097-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Particulate Matter; Direct Final Rule
Posted Date: 2002-12-31T05:00Z

Tuesday,

December
31,
2002
Part
VI
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
58
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard:
Particulate
Matter;
Final
Rule
and
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
49
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER5.
SGM
31DER5
80326
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
58
[
AD
 
FRL
 
7388
 
4]

RIN
2060
 
AK05
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard:
Particulate
Matter
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Direct
final
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
is
taking
direct
final
action
to
amend
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
particulate
matter.
The
revision
reduces
to
15
percent
the
requirement
that
reporting
organizations
collocate
25
percent
of
State
and
local
air
monitoring
station
(
SLAMS)
sites
with
a
second
sampler
in
order
to
estimate
precision
at
a
reporting
organization
level.
The
regulations
describe
the
number
of
collocated
sites
required
within
a
reporting
organization.
With
today's
action,
EPA
is
making
a
simple
change
in
the
regulations
by
changing
the
requirement
to
collocate
25
percent
of
reporting
organizations
sites
to
15
percent
of
the
reporting
organizations
sites.
The
effect
of
this
change
will
be
to
reduce
the
number
of
monitors
which
must
be
collocated.
This
in
turn
will
reduce
the
cost
of
implementing
and
maintaining
monitoring
networks
but
without
significantly
affecting
our
confidence
in
the
precision
at
the
reporting
organization
level
or
in
providing
acceptable
estimates
of
achievement
of
the
precision
Data
Quality
Objectives
(
DQOs).
Since
reporting
organizations
are
of
unequal
size
in
the
number
of
monitors
they
implement,
15
percent
was
considered
an
acceptable
limit
of
providing
enough
precision
information
for
smaller
reporting
organizations
while
not
unduly
burdening
larger
reporting
organizations.
DATES:
This
direct
final
rule
will
be
effective
on
March
31,
2003
without
further
notice,
unless
significant
adverse
comments
are
received
by
January
30,
2003.
If
significant
adverse
comments
are
received,
we
will
publish
a
timely
withdrawal
in
the
Federal
Register
informing
the
public
that
this
rule
will
not
take
effect.
ADDRESSES:
Written
comments
should
be
submitted
(
in
duplicate
if
possible)
to:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(
6102),
Attention:
Docket
No.
A96
 
51,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
In
person
or
by
courier,
deliver
comments
(
in
duplicate
if
possible)
to:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(
6102),
Attention
Docket
A96
 
51,
U.
S.
EPA,
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
We
request
that
you
send
a
separate
copy
of
your
comments
to
Mr.
Michael
Papp,
Monitoring
and
Quality
Assurance
Group
(
C339
 
02),
Emissions,
Monitoring,
and
Analysis
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
information
concerning
the
direct
final
rule,
contact
Mr.
Michael
Papp,
Monitoring
and
Quality
Assurance
Group
(
C339
 
02),
Emissions,
Monitoring,
and
Analysis
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
2408.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
We
are
publishing
this
direct
final
without
prior
proposal
because
we
view
this
as
noncontroversial
and
do
not
anticipate
adverse
comments.
However,
in
the
Proposed
Rule
section
of
this
Federal
Register,
we
are
publishing
a
separate
document
that
will
serve
as
the
proposal
in
the
event
that
adverse
comments
are
filed.
If
we
receive
any
significant
adverse
comments,
we
will
publish
a
timely
withdrawal
in
the
Federal
Register
informing
the
public
that
this
direct
final
rule
will
not
take
effect.
We
will
address
all
public
comments
in
a
subsequent
final
rule
based
on
the
proposed
rule.
We
will
not
institute
a
second
comment
period
on
this
direct
final
rule.
Any
parties
interested
in
commenting
must
do
so
at
this
time.
Docket.
The
docket
is
an
organized
and
complete
file
of
information
compiled
by
EPA
in
developing
this
direct
final
rule.
The
docket
is
a
dynamic
file
because
material
is
added
throughout
the
rulemaking
process.
The
docketing
system
is
intended
to
allow
members
of
the
public
and
industries
involved
to
readily
identify
and
locate
documents
so
that
they
can
effectively
participate
in
the
rulemaking
process.
Along
with
the
proposed
and
promulgated
standards
and
their
preambles,
the
docket
contains
the
record
in
the
case
of
judicial
review.
The
docket
number
for
this
rulemaking
is
A
 
96
 
51.
Worldwide
Web
(
WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
electronic
copies
of
this
action
will
be
posted
on
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature,
we
will
post
a
copy
of
the
supplemental
proposal
on
the
Air
Monitoring
Technology
Information
Center's
TTN
Web
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
amtic/
pmcfr.
html
under
the
title
``
PM
2.5
Collocated
Precision
Reduction.''
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
you
need
more
information
regarding
the
TTN,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)
541
 
5384.
Authority.
Sections
110,
301(
a),
and
319
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
as
amended,
42
U.
S.
C.
7410,
7601
(
a),
7619.

I.
Background
The
Clean
Air
Act
as
amended
(
1990
Amendments),
established
requirements
for
States
to
prepare
and
submit
State
Implementation
plans
(
SIPs)
to
EPA
to
implement
and
enforce
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
(
NAAQS).
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.
Specifically,
section
110
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
Act)
identifies
particular
requirements
for
these
SIPs
and
lists
the
elements
which
each
must
contain
in
order
to
be
approvable
by
EPA.
Included
in
these
provisions
is
the
requirement
that
each
SIP:

provide
for
establishment
and
operation
of
appropriate
devices,
methods,
systems,
and
procedures
necessary
to
 
(
i)
monitor,
compile,
and
analyze
data
on
ambient
air
quality,
and
(
ii)
upon
request,
make
such
data
available
to
the
Administrator;

42
U.
S.
C
7410(
a)(
2)(
B).
Any
air
quality
monitoring
systems
required
in
such
SIP's
were
further
required
to
utilize
standard
criteria
and
methodologies
established
by
regulations
to
be
promulgated
by
EPA
pursuant
to
section
319
of
the
Act.
When
EPA
promulgated
NAAQS
for
fine
particulate
matter
(
PM
2.5),
it
also
adopted
regulations
for
air
sampling
(
62
FR
38833,
July
18,
1997).
These
regulations
included
quality
assurance
(
QA)
requirements
in
Appendix
A
based
on
data
quality
objectives
developed
using
PM
2.5
data
available
in
EPA's
Aerometric
Information
Retrieval
System
(
AIRS)
and
other
sources
prior
to
the
July
18,
1997
rulemaking.
These
QA
objectives
were
developed
to
ensure
that
decision
makers
would
have
PM
2.5
data
of
adequate
quality
to
support
important
decisions
such
as
the
comparison
to
the
PM
2.5
NAAQS.
In
response
to
complaints
that
arose
under
previous
regulations
about
the
burden
of
QA
requirements,
62
FR
38767,
July
18,
1997
section
IV,
``
Discussion
of
Regulatory
Revisions
and
Major
Comments
on
Part
58,''
EPA
stated
that
``[
i]
n
an
effort
to
assist
State
and
local
agencies
in
achieving
the
data
quality
objectives
of
the
PM
2.5
monitoring
program,
an
incentive
program
has
been
established
that
is
based
on
network
performance
and
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
49
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER5.
SGM
31DER5
80327
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
maturity
that
can
reduce
these
QA
requirements.''
Within
40
CFR
part
58,
appendix
A
data
quality
objectives
for
precision
(
10
percent)
and
bias
(
±
10
percent)
were
identified.
In
order
to
meet
the
precision
data
quality
objective,
reporting
organizations
are
currently
required
by
the
regulations
to
collocate
25
percent
of
the
monitoring
sites
with
a
second
federal
reference
method
monitor.
This
second
monitor
would
collect
a
sample
every
6
days.
The
data
quality
objective
is
assessed
using
3
years
of
this
collocated
information,
which
would
provide
approximately
182
values
for
any
one
site.
Over
the
data
collection
years
of
1999
and
2000,
EPA
performed
data
quality
assessments
on
PM
2.5
data
and
found
that
the
majority
of
the
reporting
organizations
are
achieving
the
precision
data
quality
objective.
In
2001,
EPA
also
reviewed
the
original
1997
data
quality
objectives
using
the
1999
and
2000
PM
2.5
data
set.
Using
this
more
robust
data
set,
EPA
determined
that
the
precision
data
quality
objective
was
less
influential
on
decision
errors
than
the
bias
data
quality
objective
and
therefore
greater
imprecision
could
be
tolerated
in
the
network
without
adverse
effect
on
overall
uncertainty
and
therefore
decision
making.
Based
on
the
data
quality
assessments
and
the
evaluation
of
the
original
data
quality
objective,
EPA
concluded
that
a
reduction
in
the
precision
siting
requirement
would
not
significantly
affect
confidence
in
precision
estimates
at
the
reporting
organization
level
or
in
providing
acceptable
estimates
of
achievement
of
the
precision
DQO.
Therefore,
in
keeping
with
the
commitment
established
in
the
July
18,
1997
Federal
Register
document,
EPA
has
determined
that
it
would
be
appropriate
to
reduce
the
monitor
collocation
requirements.
We
view
these
amendments
as
noncontroversial
and
anticipate
no
adverse
comments,
and
we
are
publishing
these
amendments
in
a
direct
final
rule.

II.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
we
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
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
obligation
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.
We
have
determined
that
this
direct
final
rule
does
not
qualify
as
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
under
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866
and
therefore,
is
not
subect
to
review
by
OMB.

B.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use.

This
direct
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

C.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
that
we
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.''
Under
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
we
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
the
State
and
local
governments,
or
we
consult
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
We
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law
unless
we
consult
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
This
direct
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
is
a
revision
to
an
existing
rule
governing
the
requirements
for
State
and
local
monitoring
networks
and
reduces
the
burden
on
affected
States.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
direct
final
rule.

D.
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
9,
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.''
This
direct
final
rule
does
not
impose
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
but
lessens
the
existing
requirements
on
the
tribal
governments.
This
rule
revises
an
existing
regulation
which
details
the
requirements
for
State,
local
and
tribal
air
monitoring
networks.
Accordingly,
the
requirements
of
Executive
Order
13175
do
not
apply
to
this
action.

E.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
we
determine
(
1)
is
``
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.
We
interpret
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5
 
501
of
the
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
this
does
not
establish
an
environmental
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
49
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER5.
SGM
31DER5
80328
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
251
/
Tuesday,
December
31,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
standard
intended
to
mitigate
health
or
safety
risks.

F.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Pub.
L.
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
We
have
determined
that
this
direct
final
rule
does
not
include
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
estimated
costs
of
$
100
million
or
more
to
either
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
This
rule
does
not
impose
new
requirements,
but
rather
reduces
somewhat
the
requirements
of
existing
regulations
for
State
and
local
air
monitoring
networks.
We
have
also
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
impact
small
governments.
Therefore,
the
requirements
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Act
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
The
RFA
generally
requires
that
we
conduct
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedures
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.
This
direct
final
rule
does
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
because
no
additional
cost
will
be
incurred
by
such
entities
because
of
the
changes
specified
by
the
rule.
The
rule
reduces
the
requirements
for
the
number
of
sites
at
which
collocated
monitors
are
required.
Therefore,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

H.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
any
information
collection
requirements
subject
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
review
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1980,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(``
NTTAA''),
Pub.
L.
104
 
113,
§
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.
In
this
direct
final
rule
there
is
no
consensus
standard
for
the
setting
of
a
precision
requirement
for
a
monitoring
network.
The
determination
of
the
confidence
needed
in
the
estimates
derived
for
a
particular
monitoring
network
determine
the
amount
and
quality
of
the
precision
information.
EPA
used
accepted
statistical
practices
for
the
generation
of
the
number
of
collocated
sites
it
felt
was
appropriate
for
use
in
the
network
and
used
similar
techniques
for
determining
that
the
requirement
could
be
reduced.

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.
We
will
submit
a
report
containing
this
direct
final
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
this
direct
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
direct
final
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
58
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
December
18,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
58
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
58
continues
to
read
as
follows:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401,
7416,
7601,
and
7619.
2.
In
Appendix
A
to
part
58,
section
3.5.2
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

Appendix
A
to
Part
58
 
Quality
Assurance
Requirements
for
State
and
Local
Air
Monitoring
Stations
(
SLAMS)

*
*
*
*
*
3.5.2
*
*
*
(
a)
*
*
*
(
1)
Have
15
percent
of
the
monitors
collocated
(
values
of
.5
and
greater
round
up).

*
*
*
*
*
[
FR
Doc.
02
 
32384
Filed
12
 
30
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
09:
49
Dec
30,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
31DER5.
SGM
31DER5