[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37851-37855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17768]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket # MA-068-7203a; FRL-6377-1]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants: Massachusetts; Plan for Controlling MWC 
Emissions From Existing MWC Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
approves the sections 111(d)/129 State Plan submitted by the 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on January 11, 
1999. This State Plan is for implementing and enforcing provisions at 
least as protective as the Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to 
existing Municipal Waste Combustors (MWCs) units with capacity to 
combust more than 250 tons/day of municipal solid waste (MSW). See 40 
CFR part 60, subpart Cb.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on September 13, 1999 
without further notice unless EPA receives significant, material and 
adverse comment by August 13, 1999. If EPA receives adverse comment by 
the above date, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final 
rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will 
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: You should address your written comments to: Mr. Gerald 
Potamis, Chief, Air Permits Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 
EPA-New England, Region 1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP), 
Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023.
    Documents which EPA has incorporated by reference are available for 
public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
D.C. 20460. You may examine copies of materials the DEP submitted to 
EPA relative to this action during normal business hours at the 
following locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these 
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at 
least 24 hours before the day of the visit.
    Environmental Protection Agency-New England, Region 1, Air Permits 
Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Suite 1100, One Congress Street, 
Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023.
    Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 
Waste Prevention, Division of Business Compliance, One Washington 
Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108, (617) 556-1120.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Courcier at (617) 918-1659.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking today?
II. When did these requirements first become known?
III. When does the State Plan become effective?
IV. What happens to the Federal Plan after the effective date of the 
State Plan?
V. Who must comply with the requirements?
VI. By what date must MWCs in Massachusetts achieve compliance?
VII. What pollutants must be controlled?
VIII. What emission controls are necessary to achieve compliance?
IX. What happens if an MWC does not/cannot meet the requirements by 
the final compliance date?
X. What options are available to operators if they cannot achieve 
compliance within one year of the effective date of the State Plan?
XI. What did the state submit as part of its State Plan?
XII. How did the state show that its plan is approvable?
XIII. Will these requirements force some plants to close?
XIV. When did EPA publish the rules?
XV. Why does EPA need to approve State Plans?
XVI. Administrative Requirements

I. What action is EPA taking today?

    EPA is approving the above referenced State Plan. However, we 
should note that by approving only the State Plan, EPA is taking no 
action on the proposed SIP revisions the MADEP also submitted with its 
State Plan. EPA will take action on these proposed SIP revisions and 
publish its findings in a future Federal Register document.
    EPA is publishing this approval action without prior proposal 
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and 
anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section 
of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate 
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the State Plan 
should relevant adverse comments be filed. If EPA receives no 
significant, material, and adverse comments by August 13, 1999, this 
action will be effective September 13, 1999.
    If EPA receives significant, material, and adverse comments by the 
above date, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by 
publishing a subsequent document in the Federal Register that will 
withdraw this final action. EPA will address all public

[[Page 37852]]

comments received in a subsequent final rule based on the parallel 
proposed rule published in today's Federal Register. EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If 
EPA receives no comments, this action will be effective September 13, 
1999.
    EPA's approval of MADEP's State Plan is based on our findings that:
    (1) MADEP provided adequate public notice of public hearings for 
the proposed rule-making that allows Massachusetts to carry out and 
enforce provisions that are at least as protective as the EG for large 
MWCs, and
    (2) MADEP demonstrated legal authority to adopt emission standards 
and compliance schedules applicable to the designated facilities; 
enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards and compliance 
schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain information necessary to 
determine compliance; require recordkeeping; conduct inspections and 
tests; require the use of monitors; require emission reports of owners 
and operators; and make emission data publicly available.

II. When did these requirements first become known?

    Some form of the EG was first published in the Federal Register in 
1989. On December 19, 1995, according to sections 111 and 129 of the 
Clean Air Act (Act), the EPA published the current form of the EG 
applicable to existing MWCs. The EG are at 40 CFR part 60, subpart
    Cb. See 60 FR 65387 and the Background section.

III. When Does the State Plan Become Effective?

    This direct final rule is effective on September 13, 1999 without 
further notice unless as explained under A. above, unless EPA receives 
adverse comment by August 13, 1999.

IV. What Happens to the Federal Plan After the Effective Date of 
the State Plan?

    The Federal Plan is an interim action. On the effective date of 
this action, the Federal Plan will no longer apply to MWC units covered 
by the State Plan.

V. Who Must Comply With the Requirements?

    The State Plan affects all MWCs:
    1. With a combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day of 
municipal solid waste (large MWC units), and
    2. Which commenced construction on or before September 20, 1994 
(existing MWC units).
    MADEP submitted its Plan after the Court of Appeals vacated 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Cb as it applies to small MWC units. Thus, the 
Massachusetts State Plan covers only large, existing MWC units. Small 
units are not subject to the requirements of subpart Cb and not subject 
to this approval.

VI. By What Date Must MWCs in Massachusetts Achieve Compliance?

    All existing large MWC units in the state of Massachusetts must 
comply with these requirements by December 19, 2000.

VII. What Pollutants Must Be Controlled?

    Subpart Cb regulates the following pollutants: particulate matter, 
opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon 
monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxin and dibenzofurans.

VIII. What Emission Controls Are Necessary to Achieve Compliance?

    The basis for control of each pollutant is as follows:

a. for PM, opacity, Cd, Pb, and Hg......  GCP and SD/ESP/CI, or GCP and
                                           SD/FF/CI;
b. for dioxin/furan.....................  GCP and SD/ESP, or GCP and SD/
                                           FF;
c. for SO2 and HCl......................  GCP and SD/ESP, or GCP and SD/
                                           FF;
d. for NOX..............................  SNCR.
 
GCP--good combustion practice.
SD--spray dryer.
ESP--electrostatic precipitator.
FF--fabric filter.
CI--carbon injection.
SNCR--selective noncatalytic reduction.

IX. What Happens If An MWC Does Not/Cannot Meet the Requirements By 
the Final Compliance Date?

    Any existing large MWC unit that fails to meet the requirements by 
December 19, 2000 must shut down. The unit will not be allowed to start 
up until the owner/operator installs the controls necessary to meet the 
requirements.

X. What Options Are Available to Operators If They Cannot Achieve 
Compliance Within One Year of the Effective Date of the State Plan?

    If an MWC cannot achieve compliance within one year of the 
effective date of the State Plan, the operator must agree to meet 
certain increments of progress until they achieve compliance. The State 
Rule details the increments of progress for the affected MWCs.

XI. What Did the State Submit as Part of its State Plan?

    The MADEP submitted to EPA on January 11, 1999 the following 
sections 111(d)/129 State Plan components for carrying out and 
enforcing the emission guidelines for existing MWCs in the State: Legal 
Authority; Emission Standards and Limitations; Compliance Schedule; MWC 
Emissions and MWC Plant/Unit Inventories; Procedures for Testing and 
Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants; Source Surveillance, Compliance 
Assurance and Enforcement; Demonstration That the Public Had Adequate 
Notice and Opportunity to Submit Written Comments and Public Hearing 
Summary; and applicable State regulations (MADEP regulations 310 CMR 
7.08(2)).
    The State Plan excludes the ``Material Separation Plan'' provisions 
and definition that are included in its regulation (310 CMR 
7.08(2)(f)(7)). EPA may approve the plan without such provisions, since 
the material separation plan provisions are not required by the 
Emission Guidelines. Consequently, these provisions are not necessary 
to make the plan at least as protective as the Emission Guidelines. The 
State Plan also excludes the site assignment provisions of its 
regulations (310 CMR 7.08(2)(a)).

XII. How Did the State Show That Its Plan Is Approvable?

    In appendix A of Massachusetts' Plan, MADEP cites the following in 
support of its demonstration of legal authority: Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts Attorney General's Demonstration of the Legal Authority 
to carry out the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean 
Air Act and to enforce the MWC New Source Performance Standards and 
Emissions Guidelines.
    In appendix B of the State Plan, MADEP cites all emission standards 
and limitations for the major pollutant categories related to the 
designated sites and facilities. These standards are in MADEP's Air 
Pollution Control Regulations 310 CMR 7.08(2) for Municipal Waste 
Combustors. On the basis of the Attorney General's Opinion and 
Demonstration and the statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
EPA approved these standards and limitations under 310 CMR 7.08(2) as 
being at least as protective as the Federal requirements contained in 
subpart Cb for existing large MWC units.
    In its State Plan and section 7.08(2) MWC Regulations, MADEP 
established a compliance schedule and legally enforceable increments of 
progress for each large MWC. EPA has reviewed and approved this portion 
of the State Plan as being at least as protective as Federal 
requirements for existing large MWC units.
    On pages 4-7 of Massachusetts' Plan, MADEP submitted an emissions

[[Page 37853]]

inventory of all designated pollutants for each of its six large MWCs. 
EPA reviewed and approved this portion of the Plan as meeting the 
Federal requirements for existing large MWC units.
    On page 9, Massachusetts' Plan describes its legal authority to 
require owners and operators of designated facilities to maintain 
records and report to the State the nature and amount of emissions and 
any other information necessary to enable the State to judge the 
compliance status of the affected facilities. MADEP also cites its 
legal authority to provide periodic inspection and testing and 
provisions for making reports of MWC emissions data, correlated with 
applicable emission standards, available to the general public. MADEP 
incorporated by reference into 310 CMR 7.08(2) the testing, monitoring, 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements under 40 CFR part 60. EPA 
reviewed and approved all of these State rules as being at least as 
protective as the Federal requirements for existing large MWC units.
    As stated on page 9 of the State Plan, Massachusetts is committed 
to provide annual progress reports of Plan implementation. These 
progress reports will include the required items according to 40 CFR 
51.323 through 51.326 and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and appendix D. EPA 
reviewed and approved this portion of the Plan as meeting the minimum 
Federal requirement for State Plan reporting.

XIII. Will These Requirements Force Some Plants to Close?

    EPA has not been notified of any further plant closures. It may be 
that an older plant may decide to close rather than pay the cost for 
bringing the plant into compliance with the regulations.

XIV. When Did EPA Publish the Rules?

    On December 19, 1995, according to sections 111 and 129 of the 
Clean Air Act (Act), EPA issued new source performance standards (NSPS) 
applicable to new MWCs and emissions guidelines (EG) applicable to 
existing MWCs. The NSPS and EG are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
Eb and Cb, respectively. See 60 FR 65387. Subparts Cb and Eb regulate 
the following: particulate matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen 
chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, 
and dioxin and dibenzofurans.
    On April 8, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit vacated subparts Cb and Eb as they apply 
to MWC units with capacity to combust less than or equal to 250 tons/
day of MSW (small MWCs), consistent with its opinion in Davis County 
Solid Waste Management and Recovery District v. EPA, 101 F.3d 1395 
(D.C. Cir. 1996), as amended, 108 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997). As a 
result, subparts Eb and Cb apply only to MWC units with individual 
capacity to combust more than 250 tons/day of municipal solid waste 
(large MWC units).

XV. Why Does EPA Need To Approve State Plans?

    Under section 129 of the Act, emission guidelines are not federally 
enforceable. Section 129(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit 
State Plans to EPA for approval. Each state must show that its State 
Plan will carry out and enforce the emission guidelines. State Plans 
must be at least as protective as the emission guidelines, and they 
become federally enforceable upon EPA's approval.
    The procedures for adopting and submitting State Plans are in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart B. EPA originally issued the subpart B provisions 
on November 17, 1975. EPA amended subpart B on December 19, 1995, to 
allow the subparts developed under section 129 to include 
specifications that supersede the general provisions in subpart B 
regarding the schedule for submittal of State Plans, the stringency of 
the emission limitations, and the compliance schedules. See 60 FR 
65414.

XVI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    To reduce the burden of Federal regulations on States and small 
governments, the President issued E.O. 12875 on October 26, 1993, 
entitled ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.'' Under E.O. 
12875, EPA is required to consult with representatives of affected 
State, local, and tribal governments, and keep these affected parties 
informed about the content and effect of the promulgated standards and 
emission guidelines.
    In developing the MWC emission guidelines and standards, EPA 
consulted with affected State, local, and tribal governments, and kept 
those parties informed about the MWC standards and guidelines. EPA 
prepared a written statement pursuant to E.O. 12875 which it published 
in the 1995 promulgation notice (see 60 FR 65412 to 65413). The EPA has 
determined that this State Plan does not include any new Federal 
mandates or additional Federal requirements beyond those previously 
considered during promulgation of the 1995 MWC guidelines. Therefore, 
E.O. 12875 does not require further consultation or information. To the 
extent that the State Plan contains requirements that differ from, but 
that are at least as protective as, the Federal MWC guidelines, EPA 
notes that it has consulted with State government representatives 
during the State's development of the Plan, and that affected local and 
tribal governments have been provided with information and afforded 
opportunities to comment through Massachusetts' public hearing and 
comment procedures.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks 
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

[[Page 37854]]

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's action does not create any new requirements on any entity 
affected by this State Plan. Thus, the action will not significantly or 
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not 
apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    State Plan approvals under section 111(d) and section 129(b)(2) of 
the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements on any entity 
affected by this rule, including small entities. They simply approve 
requirements that the state is already imposing. Furthermore, in 
developing the MWC emission guidelines and standards, EPA prepared a 
written statement pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act which it 
published in the 1995 promulgation notice (see 60 FR 65413). In 
accordance with EPA's determination in issuing the 1995 MWC emission 
guidelines, this State Plan does not include any new requirements that 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Therefore, because the Federal 111(d) Plan approval 
does not impose any new requirements and pursuant to section 605(b) of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Regional Administrator certifies 
that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted on by the rule.
    In developing the MWC emission guidelines and standards, EPA 
prepared a written statement pursuant to section 202 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Act which it published in the 1995 promulgation notice (see 60 
FR 65405 to 65412). The EPA has determined that this State Plan does 
not include any new Federal mandates above those previously considered 
during promulgation of the 1995 MWC guidelines. The State Plan does 
include an emission limitation for mercury that will be more stringent 
than the limit required by the EG. However, that limit is not the 
result of a Federal mandate. In approving the State Plan, EPA is 
approving pre-existing requirements under State law and imposing no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from EPA's 
approval of State Plan provisions that may be more stringent than the 
EG requirements, nor will EPA's approval of the State Plan 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, this action 
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, and 205 
of the Unfunded Mandates Act.

G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus 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 approving or disapproving state plans under section 129 of the 
Clean Air Act, EPA does not have the authority to revise or rewrite the 
State's rule, so the Agency does not have authority to require the use 
of particular voluntary consensus standards. Accordingly, EPA has not 
sought to identify or require the State to use voluntary consensus 
standards. Furthermore, Massachusetts' Plan incorporates by reference 
test methods and sampling procedures for existing MWC units already 
established by the emissions guidelines for MWCs at 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Cb, and does not establish new technical standards for MWCs. 
Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA are not applicable to this 
final rule.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 13, 1999. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2), 42 
U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)). EPA encourages interested parties to comment in 
response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, 
unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the 
proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Municipal waste 
combustors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.


[[Page 37855]]


    Dated: July 3, 1999.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.

    40 CFR Part 62 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

PART 62--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.

Subpart W--Massachusetts

    2. Part 62 is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.5340 and a new 
undesignated center heading to Subpart W to read as follows:

Plan for the Control of Designated Pollutants From Existing 
Facilities (Section 111(d) Plan)


Sec. 62.5340  Identification of Plan.

    (a) Identification of Plan. Massachusetts Plan for the Control of 
Designated Pollutants from Existing Plants (Section 111(d) Plan).
    (b) The plan was officially submitted as follows:
    (1) Control of metals, acid gases, organic compounds and nitrogen 
oxide emissions from existing municipal waste combustors, submitted on 
January 11, 1999. The Plan does not include: the site assignment 
provisions of 310 CMR 7.08(2)(a); the definition of ``materials 
separation plan'' at 310 CMR 7.08(2)(c); and the materials separation 
plan provisions at 310 CMR 7.08(2)(f)(7).
    (c) Designated facilities. The plan applies to existing sources in 
the following categories of sources:

    (1) Municipal waste combustors.
    3. Part 62 is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.5425 and a new 
undesignated center heading to Subpart W to read as follows:

Metals, Acid Gases, Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions 
From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the Capacity to 
Combust Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid Waste


Sec. 62.5425  Identification of sources.

    (a) The plan applies to the following existing municipal waste 
combustor facilities:
    (1) Fall River Municipal Incinerator in Fall River.
    (2) Ogden Martin-Haverhill MWC in Haverhill.
    (3) SEMASS RRF in Rochester.
    (4) Wheelabrator Millbury Inc. in Millbury.
    (5) Saugus RESCO in Saugus.
    (6) NESWC MWC in North Andover.

[FR Doc. 99-17768 Filed 7-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P