[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35025-35029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12460]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 904
[AR-036-FOR]
Arkansas Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan and Regulatory
Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to the Arkansas abandoned mine land
(AML) reclamation plan (Arkansas plan) and the Arkansas regulatory
program (Arkansas program) under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Arkansas proposed revisions
to its AML reclamation plan regulations concerning eligible lands and
water, reclamation objectives and priorities, and reclamation project
evaluation. Arkansas proposed to revise its regulatory program
regulations concerning procedures for assessment conference and to add
revegetation success standards for grazingland and prime farmland.
Arkansas revised its plan and program to be consistent with the
corresponding Federal regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa
Field Office, Telephone: (918) 581-6430, Internet: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Arkansas Plan and Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Arkansas Plan and Program
The Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program was established by
Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) in response to concerns
over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining
activities. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on
each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to
finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other
authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Indian
tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity
within the State or on Indian lands if they develop and submit to the
Secretary of the Interior for approval, a program (often referred to as
a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. On May 2, 1983,
the Secretary of the Interior approved the Arkansas plan. You can find
background information on the Arkansas plan, including the Secretary's
findings, the disposition of comments, and the approval of the plan in
the May 2, 1983, Federal Register (48 FR 19710). You can find later
actions on the Arkansas plan at 30 CFR 904.25 and 904.26.
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-
Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that
its State program includes, among other things, ``* * * a State law
which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act
* * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by
the Secretary pursuant to this Act.'' See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7).
On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Arkansas program on November 21, 1980. You
can find background information on the Arkansas program, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions
of approval in the November 21, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 77003).
You can find later actions on the Arkansas program at 30 CFR 904.10,
904.12, 904.15, and 904.16.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated August 13, 2001 (Administrative Record No. AR-568),
Arkansas sent us an amendment to its plan and program under SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Arkansas sent the amendment in response to our
letters dated November 26, 1985, and October 14, 1997 (Administrative
Record Nos. AR-332 and AR-559.02, respectively), that we sent to
Arkansas under 30 CFR 732.17(c). Arkansas also sent the amendment in
response to our letter dated May 5, 1999 (Administrative Record No.
AAML-30) that we sent Arkansas under 30 CFR 884.15(d). The amendment
also includes a change made at Arkansas' own initiative. Arkansas
proposes to amend the Arkansas Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation
Code.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the October 5,
2001, Federal Register (66 FR 50952). In the same document, we opened
the public comment period and provided an
[[Page 35026]]
opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the amendments adequacy.
We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested
one. The public comment period ended on November 5, 2001. We received
comments from two Federal agencies.
During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns about
the Phase III revegetation success standards for grazingland and the
Phase II and Phase III revegetation success standards for prime
farmland. We notified Arkansas of these concerns by letter dated
December 10, 2001 (Administrative Record No. AR-586.05).
By letter dated February 25, 2002 (Administrative Record No. AR-
586.07), Arkansas sent us additional explanatory information and
revisions to its proposed program amendment. Because the additional
information and revisions merely clarified certain provisions of
Arkansas' amendment, we did not reopen the public comment period.
III. OSM's Findings
Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15, 732.17, 884.14, and
884.15. We are approving the amendment.
A. Revisions to Arkansas' AML Reclamation Plan
1. Section 874.12, Eligible Lands and Water
Arkansas revised paragraph (b)(4) by replacing the reference to
``30 CFR 872.11(b)(2) and (3)'' with a reference to ``Section 402(g)(1)
and (5) of Public Law 95-97.''
The reference change in section 874.12 merely corrects an incorrect
citation reference and does not change the meaning of this previously
approved section. Therefore, we find that the revision does not alter
the substance of the Arkansas plan.
2. Section 874.13, Reclamation Objectives and Priorities
Arkansas deleted paragraph (d) of this section regarding research
and demonstration projects relating to the development of surface coal
mining reclamation and water quality control program methods and
techniques. By deleting this paragraph, the above projects will no
longer have priority as AML reclamation projects.
Section 874.13 of Arkansas' regulations provides the specific
criteria for ranking and identifying AML reclamation projects. The
provisions of 30 CFR 884.13(c)(2) of the Federal regulations requires
the specific criteria used by a State to be consistent with section 403
of the Act. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 removed the funding of coal
research and demonstration projects from section 403 of the Act.
Therefore, we find that, with the deletion of paragraph (d), section
874.13 of Arkansas' regulations is consistent with the requirements of
30 CFR 884.13(c)(2).
3. Section 874.14, Reclamation Project Evaluation
Arkansas revised paragraph (a)(2) of this section by deleting the
last sentence concerning research and demonstration projects.
Section 874.14 of Arkansas' regulations provides the factors for
evaluating proposed reclamation projects and completed reclamation
work. The last sentence of paragraph (a)(2) concerned the evaluation of
research and demonstration projects. As stated above, the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 removed the funding of coal research and demonstration
projects from section 403 of the Act. Further, Arkansas has removed
coal research and demonstration projects from its specific criteria for
ranking and identifying AML reclamation projects. Therefore, we find
that the deletion of the last sentence in section 874.14(a)(2) is
consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13.
B. Revisions to Arkansas' Regulatory Program
1. Section 845.18, Procedures for Assessment Conference
In paragraph (a) of this section, Arkansas removed the department's
old name of ``Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology''
and replaced it with the department's new name of ``Arkansas Department
of Environmental Quality.''
We find that the name change in section 845.18 does not change the
meaning of this previously approved section, and therefore does not
render the provision less effective than the corresponding Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 845.18.
2. Revegetation Success Standards for Grazingland and Prime Farmland
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) require that each
regulatory authority select revegetation success standards and
statistically valid sampling techniques for measuring revegetation
success and include them in its approved regulatory program. Arkansas
developed its revegetation success guidelines to satisfy this
requirement. The guidelines include revegetation success standards and
statistically valid sampling techniques for measuring revegetation
success of reclaimed grazingland in accordance with Arkansas'
counterparts to the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.116. The
guidelines also include revegetation success standards and
statistically valid sampling techniques for restoring soil productivity
of prime farmland soils in accordance with Arkansas' counterparts to
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 823.15. Arkansas' standards,
criteria, and parameters for revegetation success reflect the extent of
cover, species composition, and soil stabilization required in the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.111. As required by the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(2) and 823.15, Arkansas' revegetation
success standards include criteria representative of unmined lands in
the area being reclaimed to evaluate the appropriate vegetation
parameters of ground cover, production, or stocking suitable to the
approved postmining land uses. Arkansas' guidelines specify the
procedures and techniques to be used for sampling, measuring, and
analyzing vegetation parameters. Ground cover, production, and stocking
suitable to grazinglands are considered equal to the approved success
standard when they are not less than 90 percent of the success
standard. The average production of crops for prime farmland soils must
equal or exceed the average production of the same crops for the same
or similar unmined prime farmland soils. Sampling techniques for
measuring success use a 90-percent statistical confidence interval for
all land uses. We find that use of these procedures and techniques will
ensure consistent, objective collection of vegetation data.
For the above reasons, we find that the revegetation success
standards and statistically valid sampling techniques for measuring
revegetation success contained in Arkansas' revegetation success
guidelines satisfy the requirements of 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1) and 823.15.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive
any.
Federal Agency Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), 884.14(a)(2), and section 503(b) of
SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal
agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Arkansas program
(Administrative Record No. AR-568.01).
[[Page 35027]]
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) responded on October 17, 2001
(Administrative Record No. AR-568.04), that there are numerous
endangered and threatened species that occur throughout the state where
potential reclamation sites could be located, but it finds that the
standards established by Arkansas would not adversely affect any listed
species. The FWS further stated that the standards established by
Arkansas would probably serve as a benefit to listed species as well as
wildlife as a whole. Finally, the FWS provided several specific
comments on Arkansas' proposed revegatation success standards for
grazingland and prime farmland. These comments are discussed below.
A. Comments Concerning Arkansas' Revegetation Success Standards for
Grazingland
1. The FWS stated that at III.C.1 concerning reference area
requirements, the guidelines should stipulate that reference plots
using crops should not be used for grazingland reclamation sites. Only
like plant species should be used as reference plots.
Response: The word ``crop'' in this section is a generic term used
to refer to the product of a reference area. It does not specifically
refer to row crops. In the case of grazinglands, reference areas would
consist of similar plant species, and the crop yields of these
reference areas must be at a level that is reasonably comparable to the
county average for grazinglands on the same or similar soils.
2. The FWS stated that at IV.B concerning sampling techniques, the
guidelines should stipulate that the same transects are used each year.
Response: We disagree with this comment. Using the same transects
each year would negate the ``randomness'' of the selection of transect
locations. The ``randomness'' of transect site selection is necessary
to ensure that sample sites are impartial and that the results of the
sampling represent an average for the reclaimed or reference areas.
3. The FWS stated that at IV.B concerning sampling techniques, the
guidelines should clarify what criteria is used to determine whether
sampling frames or whole harvesting is chosen to calculate
productivity.
Response: We disagree with this comment. The operator has
discretion to select the method of sampling, subject to regulatory
authority approval.
4. The FWS recommended that whole area harvesting should not be
conducted during ground bird nesting season.
Response: This comment is a matter of wildlife management, and
therefore outside the scope of SMCRA and the Federal regulations.
However, we have forwarded this comment on to the State for their
consideration.
5. The FWS recommended that the operator should record the date on
the sampling data sheets. The FWS pointed out that this is important
since samples will be weighed both before and after drying, and the
time of year that the samples were harvested needs to be taken into
consideration. Also, since comparisons of the reference plots with the
reclamation plots will be made, these samples should be collected at
the same time.
Response: We agree that the operator should record the date the
sample was taken on the sampling data sheets. We further agree that the
operator must collect the samples from the reference area and
reclamation plots at the same time. The data forms in Appendices B and
C have a place to record the date of sampling. Further, section III.D
concerning reference areas provides that reference area crops and crops
in the reclaimed prime farmland area must have the same harvest dates.
Therefore, we determined that Arkansas did not need to make any changes
to these data forms.
However, Appendix D did not have a place to record the date of
sampling. By letter dated December 10, 2001 (Administrative Record No.
AR-568.05), we notified Arkansas that the data form in Appendix D must
provide an area for recording the date of sampling. By letter dated
February 25, 2002 (Administrative Record No. AR-568.07), Arkansas
revised Appendix D to include a place to record the date of sampling.
We find that Arkansas' revision to Appendix D is acceptable and
resolves the FWS's concern.
6. The FWS recommended that only native species be replanted on
reclamation sites.
Response: We disagree with this comment. Section 816.111(a) of the
Federal regulations allows a permittee to establish a vegetative cover
on regraded areas that is comprised of introduced species where
desirable and necessary to achieve the approved postmining land use and
approved by the regulatory authority. Thus, introduced species are
acceptable when approved by the regulatory authority.
B. Comments Concerning Arkansas' Revegetation Success Standards for
Prime Farmland
1. The FWS wondered when the predicted average yield per acre for
each county was calculated. The FWS stated that if it was calculated an
extended period from the present, the results might not be comparable
to the results of the reference plots due to improved farming practices
of today. The FWS stated that the operator should be encouraged to use
reference plots if this is the situation.
Response: We do not share the FWS's concern that operators will use
outdated predicted average yields as standards for success. The
regulatory authority has discretion over the selection of the success
standard. Section 780.18(b)(5) of Arkansas' regulations requires a
permittee to submit a plan for revegetation that includes, among other
things, the measures the permittee will use to determine the success of
revegetation. Section II.C.5 of Arkansas' revegetation success
guidelines for prime farmland states that the Natural Resources
Conservation Service will be notified at the time of permit submittal
of the area to be mined. If updated soil productivity values are
available, they will be used for the standard of success. The
regulatory authority has discretion to disapprove the use of predicted
average yield if it is so outdated that it would not serve as an
adequate measure of soil productivity. Furthermore, even if an operator
uses predicted average yields that are outdated, section II.C.5.b
provides that the yield data may be adjusted to compensate for
differences in specific management practices. Therefore, if the yield
data is outdated, they can be adjusted to take into account improved
farming practices.
2. The FWS recommended that the operator record the date the sample
was taken on the sampling data sheets. The FWS pointed out that this is
important since samples will be weighed both before and after drying,
and the time of year that the samples were harvested needs to be taken
into consideration. Also, since comparisons of the reference plots with
the reclamation plots will be made, these samples should be collected
at the same time.
Response: We agree that the operator should record the date the
sample was taken on the sampling data sheets. We further agree that the
operator must collect the samples from the reference area and
reclamation plots at the same time. The data forms in Appendices B and
C have a place to record the date of sampling. Further, section III.D
concerning reference areas provides that reference area crops and crops
in the reclaimed prime farmland area must have the same harvest dates.
Therefore, we determined that Arkansas did not need to make any changes
to these data forms.
However, Appendix G did not have a place to record the date of
sampling. By letter dated December 10, 2001
[[Page 35028]]
(Administrative Record No. AR-568.05), we notified Arkansas that the
data form in Appendix G must provide an area for recording the date of
sampling. By letter dated February 25, 2002 (Administrative Record No.
AR-568.07), Arkansas revised Appendix G to include a place to record
the date of sampling. We find that Arkansas' revision to Appendix G is
acceptable and resolves the FWS's concern.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written
concurrence from the EPA for those provisions of the program amendment
that relate to air or water quality standards issued 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.). None of the revisions that Arkansas
proposed to make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality
standards. Therefore, we did not ask the EPA to concur on the
amendment.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and 884.15(a)(2), we requested
comments on the amendment from the EPA (Administrative Record No. AR-
568.01). The EPA did not respond to our request.
State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4) and 884.14(a)(6), we are required to
request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an
effect on historic properties. On September 6, 2001, we requested
comments on Arkansas's amendment (Administrative Record No. AR-568.01).
The Arkansas Historic Preservation Office responded on September 6,
2001 (Administrative Record No. AR-568.02), that because no known
historic properties would be affected, it has no comment on the
proposed program amendment.
V. OSM's Decision
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment as submitted
by Arkansas on August 13, 2001, and as revised on February 25, 2002.
We approve the regulations proposed by Arkansas with the provision
that they be fully promulgated in identical form to the regulations
submitted to and reviewed by OSM and the public.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR part 904, which codify decisions concerning the Arkansas
program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to
make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA
requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the
capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its
purposes. Section 405(d) of SMCRA requires that the state have a
program that is in compliance with the procedures, guidelines, and
requirements established under the Act. Making this rule effective
immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of
State and Federal standards.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12630--Takings
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is
based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.
Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that 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 AML reclamation plans, and
program and plan amendments, because each program and plan 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 the Federal regulations at
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. Decisions on proposed AML reclamation plans and revisions
submitted by a State or Tribe are based on a determination of whether
the submittal meets the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.
1231-1243) and 30 CFR part 884 of the Federal regulations.
Executive Order 13132--Federalism
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates
the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of
the purposes of SMCRA is to ``establish a nationwide program to protect
society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal
mining operations.'' Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State
laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be ``in
accordance with'' the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7)
requires that State programs contain rules and regulations ``consistent
with'' regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Section
405(d) of SMCRA requires State abandoned mine reclamation programs to
be in compliance with the procedures, guidelines, and requirements of
SMCRA.
Executive Order 13211--Regulations That Significantly Affect The
Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which
requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule
that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement
because 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)). Also, this rule does not require an environmental impact
statement since agency decisions on proposed State and Tribal AML
reclamation plans and revisions are categorically excluded from
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332)
by the Manual of the Department of the Interior (516 DM 6, appendix 8,
paragraph 8.4B(29)).
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 certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a
[[Page 35029]]
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 counterpart 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. 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 counterpart
Federal regulations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; and (c) does not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a
major rule.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any
given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State
submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart
Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a
determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an
unfunded mandate.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 904
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: April 5, 2002.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 904 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 904--ARKANSAS
1. The authority citation for Part 904 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 904.12 is amended by revising the section heading to
read as follows:
Sec. 904.12 State program provisions and amendments not approved.
* * * * *
3. Section 904.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 904.15 Approval of Arkansas regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
August 13, 2001........................... May 17, 2002....................... ASCMRC 845.18(a); Phase II and
III Revegtation Success
Standards for Grazingland; and
Phase III Revegetation Success
Standards for Prime Farmland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Section 904.25 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in
chronological order by ``Date of final publication'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 904.25 Approval of Arkansas abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
August 13, 2001........................... May 17, 2002....................... ASCMRC 874.12(b)(4); 874.13(d);
and 874.14(a)(2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-12460 Filed 5-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-P