[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41423-41427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20715]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 917
[SPATS No. KY-191-FOR]
Kentucky Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing approval, with an exception, of an amendment
to the Kentucky permanent regulatory program approved pursuant to the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). This
amendment provides that areas reclaimed following the removal of
temporary structures such as sedimentation ponds, roads, and small
diversions are not subject to a revegetation responsibility period and
bond liability period separate from that of the permit area or
increment thereof served by such facilities. The amendment is intended
to clarify ambiguities in the State regulations and to improve
operational efficiency.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William J. Kovacic, Director, Lexington Field Office, Telephone (606)
233-2894.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Kentucky Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Director's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Kentucky Program
The Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Kentucky
regulatory program effective May 18, 1982. Background information on
the permanent program submission, as well as the Secretary's findings,
the disposition of comments and a detailed explanation of the
conditions of approval can be found in the May 18, 1982, Federal
Register (47 FR 21404). Subsequent actions concerning the conditions of
approval and program amendments are identified at 30 CFR 917.11,
917.13, 917.15, 917.16 and 917.17.
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated June 28, 1991 (Administrative Record No. KY-1059,
Kentucky submitted revisions to section 1(7) of the Kentucky
Administrative Regulations (KAR) at 405 KAR 16:200 and 18:200 as part
of a larger rulemaking. OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment
in the July 22, 1991, Federal Register (56 FR 33398), and, in the same
notice, opened the public comment period and provided opportunity for a
public hearing on the adequacy of the proposed amendment. The public
comment period ended on August 21, 1991. Since no one requested an
opportunity to testify at a public hearing, no hearing was held.
By letter dated January 22, 1992 (Administrative Record No. KY-
1107), Kentucky revised the proposed amendment in response to changes
made during its promulgation process. OSM announced receipt of the
revised amendment in the April 13, 1992, Federal Register (57 FR
12775), and, in the same notice, reopened the public comment period and
again provided an opportunity for a public hearing. The public comment
period closed on May 13, 1992. As with the previous submittal, no one
requested an opportunity to testify at a public hearing; therefore, no
hearing was held.
OSM subsequently announced its decision on most provisions of the
proposed amendment in the June 9, 1993 Federal Register (58 FR 32283).
Like the corresponding Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(1)
and (c)(2), proposed sections 1(7) of 405 KAR 16:200 and 18:200 require
that the revegetation responsibility period begin after the last
augmented seeding, fertilizing, irrigating or other work and continue
for a minimum of 5 years. However, proposed subsections 1(7)(b) would
exempt haul roads, areas from which sedimentation ponds and associated
diversion have been removed, and disposal areas for accumulated
sediment and sedimentation pond embarkment material from the full
revegetation responsibility period, provided vegetation established on
all these areas has been in place at least 2 years before final bond
release. In its final decision, OSM stated at 58 FR 32285 that it was
deferring a decision on section 1(7)(b) of 405 KAR 16:200 and 18:200
until additional opportunity for public comment was provided in a
separate Federal Register notice. That commitment was fulfilled by the
notice published on September 15, 1993 (58 FR 48333), which opened the
public comment period until October 15, 1993. Since no one requested an
opportunity to testify at a public hearing, no hearing was held. This
notice also included similar proposed revisions to the Illinois and
Ohio regulations as well as a discussion of OSM's proposed policy
concerning restart of the revegetation responsibility period every time
a small portion of the permit area requires reseeding or replanting.
Subsequent to this notice, on May 29, 1996, OSM approved similar
proposed revisions to the Colorado regulations (61 FR 26792) and on
October 22, 1997, the Illinois regulations (62 FR 54765).
III. Director's Findings
Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17, are the Director's findings concerning the
deferred revisions at sections 1(7)(b) of 405 KAR 16:200 and 18:200.
A. OSM's policy concerning the term of liability for reclamation of
roads and Temporary Sediment Control Structures
The following discussion of the rules in 30 CFR Part 816, which
applies to surface mining activitities, also pertains to similarly or
identically constructed sections in 30 CFR Part 817, which applies to
underground mining activities.
Section 515(b)(20) of SMCRA provides that the revegetation
responsibility period shall commence ``after the last year of augmented
seeding, fertilizing, irrigation, or other work'' needed to assure
revegetation success. In the absence of any indication of Congressional
intent in the legislative history, OSM interprets this requirement as
applying to the increment or permit area as a whole, not individually
to those lands within the permit area upon which revegetation is
delayed solely because of their use in support of the reclamation
effort on the planted area. As implied in the preamble discussion in 30
CFR 816.46(b)(5), which prohibits the removal of ponds or other
siltation structures until two years after the last augmented seeding,
planting of the sites from which such structures are removed need not
itself be considered an augmented seeding necessitating an extended or
separate liability period (48 FR 44038-44039, September 26, 1983). Such
areas would include sediment control structures and associated
structures and facilities such as diversion ditches, disposal and
storage
[[Page 41424]]
areas for accumulated sediments and sediment pond embankment material,
and ancillary roads used to access such areas.
The purose of the revegetation responsibility period is to ensure
that the mined area has been reclaimed to a condition capable of
supporting the desired permanent vegetation. Achievement of this
purpose will not be adversely affected by this interpretation of
section 515(b)(20) of SMCRA since (1) the lands involved are relatively
small in size and either widely dispersed or narrowly linear in
distribution and (2) the delay in establishing revegetation on these
sites is due not to reclamation deficiencies or the facilitation of
mining, but rather to the regulatory requirement that ponds and
diversions be retained and maintained to control runoff from the
planted area until the revegetation is sufficiently established to
render such structures unnecessary for the protection of water quality.
In addition, the areas affected likely would be no larger than
those which could be reseeded (without restarting the revegetation
period) in the course of performing normal husbandry practices, as that
term is defined in 30 CFR 816.116(c)(4) and explained in the preamble
to that rule (53 FR 34636, 34641; September 7, 1988; 52 FR 28012,
28016; July 27, 1987). Areas this small would have a negligible impact
on any evaluation of the permit area as a whole. Most importantly, this
interpretation is unlikely to adversely affect the regulatory
authority's ability to make a statistically valid determination as to
whether a diverse, effective permanent vegetative cover has been
successfully established in accordance with the appropriate
revegetation success standards.
However, nothing in this interpretation of section 515(b)(20) of
SMCRA should be construed as exempting such lands from meeting the
revegetation requirements of section 515(b)(19) of SMCRA prior to final
bond release. As required by 30 CFR 816.46(b)(6) and 816.150(f)(6),
when siltation structures and roads are removed, the land on which they
were located must be regraded and revegetated in accordance with the
reclamation plan and the requirements of 30 CFR 816.111 through
816.116, with the exception of 30 CFR 816.116(c), which requires a
period of extended responsibility for successful revegetation on
reclaimed areas (September 15, 1993, 58 FR 48335).
B. Comparison of Kentucky's Proposed Regulations at 405 KAR 16:200 and
18:200 Sections 1(7)(b) With OSM's Policy Clarification
Kentucky's proposed provisions would exempt haul roads, areas from
which sedimentation ponds and associated diversions have been removed,
and disposal areas for accumulated sediment and sedimentation pond
embankment material from the full revegetation responsibility period,
provided vegetation established on all these areas has been in place at
least two years before final bond release.
Except for the reference to haul roads, the Kentucky provision is
consistent with the OSM policy stated above. As interpreted in the
policy statement above, the removal of sediment ponds and related
structures such as diversion ditches, disposal and storage areas for
accumulated sediments and sediment pond embankment material, and
ancillary roads used to access such areas, is a nonaugmentative
practice that does not restart the five-year responsibility period.
However, Kentucky's reference to haul roads renders the proposed
provisions less effective than the Federal regulations as interpreted
in the OSM policy statement above. As stated above, the purposes of
SMCRA at section 515(b)(20) concerning the five-year revegetation
responsibility period would not be adversely affected by this
interpretation of SMCRA if: (1) The lands involved are relatively small
in size and either widely dispersed or narrowly linear in distribution
and (2) the delay in establishing revegetation on these sites is due
not to reclamation deficiencies or the facilitation of mining, but
rather to the regulatory requirement that ponds and diversions be
retained and maintained to control runoff from the planted area until
the revegetation is sufficiently established to render such structures
unnecessary for the protection of water quality. Haul roads do not meet
these requirements. Haul roads facilitate mining and can encompass a
significant amount of the permit area. And, haul roads are not retained
and maintained for their use in support of the reclamation effort of a
planted area. Haul roads are ``used for transporting coal or spoil''
and are considered primary roads. 48 FR 22110, 22113 (May 16, 1983).
Primary roads have a greater potential for environmental harm than
ancillary roads. 53 FR 45190-45198 (November 8, 1988). In addition to
meeting the performance requirements of 30 CFR 816/817.150, primary
roads must meet the requirements of 816/817.151. In Illinois, OSM only
approved those roads necessary for the maintenance of sediment ponds,
diversions and reclamation areas. 62 FR 54765 (October 22, 1997). OSM
and Illinois agreed that the amendment did not include haul roads or
other primary roads.
Kentucky's proposal to require that vegetation be established on
areas where sediment control structures and associated structures and
facilities have been removed for two years before bond release does not
render the Kentucky program less effective. As discussed above, the
Federal regulations and Kentucky's regulations (405 KAR 16:070 Section
1(1)(b) and 16:090 Section 5(17) provide that sediment ponds be
retained and maintained to control runoff from the planted area until
the revegetation is sufficiently established to render such structures
unnecessary for the protection of water quality. Therefore, when the
sediment control structures are removed, the surrounding drainage area
has already been effectively revegetated. Following this, the entire
revegetated area (or increment thereof), including the reclaimed area
where the sediment control structure was located, is subject to the
full Kentucky program requirements concerning final inspection for bond
release. Any inadequate revegetation on the reclaimed sediment control
structure and related facilities will be detected during the inspection
for bond release. That is, the proposed two-year criterion in no way
reduces or eliminates any of Kentucky's standards for reclamation
success for bond release. The Director finds that the two-year
criterion is sufficient to establish a permanent and diverse vegetative
cover as is required by SMCRA section 515(b)(19), especially since the
lands typically involved will be small in size, widely dispersed, and
surrounded by revegetated lands.
Therefore, and except for the proposed reference to haul roads, the
Director finds that Kentucky's proposed provision is consistent with
and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816/
817.46(b) (5) and (6), 30 CFR 816/817.116(c) and sections 515(b) (19)
and (20) of SMCRA, as clarified by OSM in the September 15, 1993,
Federal Register (58 FR 48333). In addition, the Director is requiring
that Kentucky further amend the Kentucky program to delete the term
``haul roads'' at sections 1(7)(b) of 405 KAR 16:200 and 18:200.
[[Page 41425]]
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
The Director solicited public comments and provided an opportunity
for a public hearing on Kentucky's proposed regulations and OSM's
proposed policy. Because no one requested an opportunity to speak at a
public hearing, no hearing was held.
Comments were received from the Illinois Department of Mines and
Minerals (now the Illinois Department of Natural Resources--Office of
Mines and Minerals), the Western Kentucky Coal Association, the
Kentucky Coal Association, the Lignite Energy Council, the National
Coal Association, the Ohio Mining and Reclamation Association, the
North Dakota Public Service Commission, and the Kentucky Resources
Council. Except for the Kentucky Resources Council, all of the
commenters were in favor of the policy.
In its comments, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
supported the inclusion of the reclamation of roads along with the
reclamation of sediment control structures that would not restart the
revegetation responsibility period. On October 22, 1997 (62 FR 54765),
OSM approved Illinois regulations concerning reseeding that is
considered to be nonaugmentative of areas from which temporary features
such as sedimentation ponds, roads, and diversions have been removed
after vegetation has been established on the surrounding area. In its
review of those regulations, OSM reviewed and commented on an
accompanying policy document that explains how the State intends to
implement these regulations. Illinois' reference to roads in its policy
document was interpreted by OSM to mean those roads necessary for
maintenance of sediment ponds, diversions, and reclamation areas.
Ancillary roads used for maintenance do not include haul roads or other
primary roads which should either have been removed upon completion of
mining or approved to be retained for an approved postmining land use.
On April 11, 1997 (Administrative Record Number IL-1243) OSM discussed
the above interpretation of roads with Illinois. Illinois agreed with
OSM's interpretation of the meaning of the term ``roads'' as used in
its policy document.
In response to the Directors' proposed clarification of OSM policy,
the Kentucky Resources Council initiates its comments with the premise
that OSM has proposed to treat the initial seeding and restoration of
areas disturbed by diversions, roads and sedimentation ponds as
``normal husbandry practices.'' It then argues that the initial seeding
of such areas is not normal husbandry practice, and any revegetation
other than ``husbandry practices'' as defined by 30 CFR 816.116(c)(4)
constitutes ``augmented seeding'' and would therefore require extension
of the full liability period for the establishment of permanent
vegetation. First, the Director did not base not restarting the
liability period on the contention that revegetation of such areas is a
normal husbandry practice. Second, the Director does not agree that any
revegetation other than ``normal husbandry practices'' constitutes
``augmented seeding.'' The legislative history of the Act reveals no
specific Congressional intent in the use of the term ``augmented
seeding.'' Accordingly, OSM's interpretation of augmented seeding is
given deference so long as it has a rational basis. OSM would not
consider the seeding of small areas, such as ponds and their associated
diversions and roads, as augmented seeding. However, only the
reclamation and reseeding of ancillary roads and not haul roads would
be considered nonaugmentative. For further discussion of such
rationale, see the Director's Finding above. Areas reclaimed following
removal of temporary sediment control, and associated structures such
as diversions, disposal and storage areas for accumulated sediments and
sediment pond embankment material, and ancillary roads used to access
such areas would not be subject to a separate or extended bond
liability period apart from the applicable permit area served by such
structures. The seeding of sedimentation ponds and their associated
diversions and roads is not the result of reclamation failure, but
because 30 CFR 816.46(b)(5) prohibits the removal of temporary
sedimentation ponds until two years after the last augmented seeding.
The Kentucky Resources Council overlooks the fact that for the vast
majority of the reclaimed area the revegetation responsibility period
will be at least five years. Neither Congressional history nor the
language of the statute distinguishes between initial overall
reclamation of a mined area and the subsequent restoration of temporary
structures like sedimentation ponds and their associated areas. In the
absence of such distinction, the Secretary is delegated discretion to
determine whether a proposed state amendment is no less effective than
the Act and consistent with the counterpart Federal regulation. The
Director's stated interpretation of Section 515(b)(20) is that the
period of revegetation responsibility applies ``to the increment or
permit area as a whole, not individually to those lands within that
area upon which revegetation is delayed solely because of their use in
support of the reclamation effort of the planted area.'' See 58 FR
48333-48335, September 15, 1993.
OSM has taken a consistent position in approving an amendment to
the Colorado (61 FR 26792, May 29, 1996) and Illinois (62 FR 54765,
October 22, 1997) surface mining programs which provided that reclaimed
temporary drainage control facilities shall not be subject to the
extended liability period for revegetative success or the related bond
release criteria. The Director, therefore, does not agree with the
commenter's interpretation of Section 515(b)(20) of SMCRA.
The Kentucky Resources Council also asserts that OSM's position
violates 30 CFR 816.133. Section 816.133 requires that disturbed areas
be restored in a timely manner to the premining uses of land or higher
or better uses. In response, the Director notes that the Kentucky
amendment does not eliminate this requirement.
Federal Agency Comments
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), the Director solicited
comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with
an actual or potential interest in the Ohio program. Comments were
received from the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The U.S. Forest Service
commented that it had reviewed OSM's proposed rule to clarify its
policy towards revegetation success and agreed with the proposed rule.
The U.S. Bureau of Mines suggested that OSM consider the
significant differences in the reclamation of sediment structures and
roads, since sediment structures generally possess characteristics
necessary for successful reclamation, while roads generally require
significant initial work to develop a necessary growth environment. The
Director agrees with the commenter. OSM's policy and regulations
require that when haul roads are removed, the land on which they were
located must be regraded and revegetated in accordance with approved
plans and the requirements of 30 CFR 816.111 through 816.116, or State
counterparts. Although the proposed Kentucky regulation would have
included haul roads in the proposed exclusion to restarting the
[[Page 41426]]
five-year revegetation period, OSM has not approved the provision to
the extent that it includes haul roads (see Findings above). OSM's
policy as stated above, limits the proposed exemption to small, lightly
traveled roads used to access the sediment control structures. OSM's
policy excludes roads posing significant potential for reclamation
problems (such as haul roads).
The USFWS commented and recommended that the proposed provisions
remain unamended. The USFWS stated that requiring only a two-year
revegetation responsibility period following the removal of sedimentary
structures and associated facilities will not be sufficient to
guarantee adequate revegetation and prevent erosion. The Director
disagrees. As stated above in the findings, Kentucky is proposing that
the five-year revegetation responsibility period not be restarted when
small areas containing the required sedimentary control structures are
reclaimed when no longer needed. The five-year revegetation
responsibility period will still be required for the overall permit
area or increment thereof. In addition, the approved Kentucky program
requirements concerning bond release, including the revegetation
standards, remain in place. Therefore, Kentucky will continue to assess
whether or not there has been established within the permit area (or
increment), including the areas where sediment control structures were
removed, a diverse, effective permanent vegetative cover in accordance
with the appropriate revegetation success standards. That is, not
restarting the revegetation responsibility upon removal of sediment
control structures will not diminish the requirements to meet the
revegetation standards.
The USFWS also stated that sedimentary control structures are often
constructed on steep slopes, involve loose and erosive materials, and
are located within or upslope of environmentally sensitive areas
associated with streams and wetlands. Reduction of the vegetation
monitoring from five to two years would unjustifiably increase the
potential to impair the quality of Kentucky's waters. In response, the
Director disagrees with the commenter. The areas from which the
sedimentary structures are removed, including any in steep slope areas,
and any with nearby environmentally sensitive areas, are required by
Kentucky regulations to be surrounded by revegetated lands with
vegetation already sufficiently established as to render such
structures unnecessary for the protection of water quality and effluent
limitations. Following this, the entire revegetated area (or increment
thereof), including the reclaimed area where the sediment control
structure was located, is subject to the full Kentucky program
requirements concerning final inspection for bond release. In addition,
the Director finds that the two-year criterion proposed by Kentucky is
sufficient to establish (as is required by SMCRA section 515(b)(19)) a
permanent and diverse vegetative cover on the reclaimed sediment
control structure areas, especially since the lands typically involved
will be small in size, widely dispersed, and surrounded by revegetated
lands.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to obtain the
written concurrence of the EPA with respect to those provisions of the
proposed program amendment that relate to air or water quality
standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). The
proposed Kentucky amendment does not pertain to air or water quality
standards and, therefore, EPA's concurrence is not required.
Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on the
proposed amendment from the EPA. The EPA responded and concurred
without comment on October 18, 1993 (Administrative Record No. KY-
1246).
V. Director's Decision
Based on the above finding, the Director approves, except for the
reference to haul roads, Kentucky's regulations at sections 1(7)(b) of
405 KAR 16:200 and 18:200. In addition, the Director is requiring that
Kentucky further amend the Kentucky program to detele the term ``haul
roads'' at sections 1(7)(b) of 405 KAR 16:200 and 18:200.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 917, codifying decisions
concerning the Kentucky program, are being amended to implement this
decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to
expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to
bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without
undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by
SMCRA.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
Executive Order 12988
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section.
However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of
State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such
program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM.
Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30
CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State
regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must
be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is
consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and
whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this 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.).
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
corresponding Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the corresponding Federal regulations.
[[Page 41427]]
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any
given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: July 20, 1998.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR Part 917 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 917--KENTUCKY
1. The authority citation for Part 917 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 917.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 917.15 Approval of Kentucky regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission Date of final Citation/
date publication description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
June 28, 1991................... August 4, 1998.... 405 KAR 16:200
Sec. 1(7)(b) and
18:200 Sec.
1(7)(b).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Section 917.16 is amended by adding a new paragraph (n) to read
as follows:
Sec. 917.16 Required regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
(n) By October 5, 1998, Kentucky shall amend the Kentucky program,
or provide a written description of an amendment together with a
timetable for enactment which is consistent with established
administrative or legislative procedures in the State, to delete the
term ``haul roads'' at sections 1(7)(b) of 405 KAR 16:200 and 18:200.
[FR Doc. 98-20715 Filed 8-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M