North Dakota Regulatory Program

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 934

[ND-035-FOR, Amendment No. XXV]

North Dakota Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)

is approving a proposed amendment to the North Dakota regulatory

program (hereinafter, the ``North Dakota program'') under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). North Dakota

proposed revisions to rules pertaining to a proposal to eliminate the

requirement for companies to submit a copy of the Federal Coal

Production and Reclamation Fee Report, changes to revegetation success

standards, and a new rule on inspection frequency for inactive mines.

The amendment revised the State program to improve operational

efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy Padgett, Telephone: 307/261-6550,

Internet address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the North Dakota Program

On December 15, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally

approved the North Dakota program. General background information on

the North Dakota program, including the Secretary's findings, the

disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the North

Dakota program can be found in the December 15, 1980, Federal Register

(45 FR 82214). Subsequent actions concerning North Dakota's program and

program amendments can be found at 30 CFR 934.15 and 934.16.

II. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated August 29, 1997, North Dakota submitted a proposed

amendment to its program (Amendment No. XXV, administrative record No.

ND-Z-01) pursuant to SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). North Dakota

submitted the proposed amendment at its own initiative. The provisions

of the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) that North Dakota

proposed to revise were: NDAC 69-05.2-13-01, concerning its coal

production and reclamation fee report; NDAC 69-05.2-22-07, concerning

revegetation success standards; and the addition of NDAC 69-05.2-28-18,

concerning inspections of inactive surface coal mining operations.

OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the September

17, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 48807), provided an opportunity for a

public hearing or meeting on its substantive adequacy, and invited

public comment on its adequacy (administrative record No. ND-Z-13). The

public comment period ended at 4 p.m., m.d.t. on October 17, 1997.

During its review of the amendment, OSM identified concerns with

NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1, pertaining to the time frame for demonstrating

revegetation success. OSM notified North Dakota of the concerns in a

telephone conversation on March 11,

[[Page 12897]]

1998 (administrative record No. ND-Z-09).

North Dakota responded in a letter dated April 23, 1998, by

submitting additional explanatory information pertaining to NDAC 69-

05.2-22-07.4.1 (administrative record No. ND-Z-10).

Based upon the additional explanatory information for the proposed

program amendment submitted by North Dakota, OSM reopened the public

comment period in the June 17, 1998 Federal Register (63 FR 33022;

administrative record No. ND-Z-12). The public comment period ended on

July 2, 1998.

III. Director's Findings

As discussed below, the Director, in accordance with SMCRA and 30

CFR 732.15 and 732.17, finds that the proposed program amendment

submitted by North Dakota on August 29, 1997, and as supplemented with

additional explanatory information on April 23, 1998, is no less

effective than the corresponding Federal regulations. Accordingly, the

Director approves the proposed amendment.

1. NDAC 69-05.2-13-01, Deletion of North Dakota's Requirement for Coal

Production and Reclamation Fee Report

North Dakota proposed to delete at NDAC 69-05.2-13-01 the

requirement that a copy of the Coal Production and Reclamation Fee

Report (that is prepared by mining companies and submitted to OSM) also

be furnished to the North Dakota Public Service Commission.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 870.15(c) requires, in part, that

All operators who receive a Coal Sales and Reclamation Fee

Report (Form OSM-1), including those with zero sales, uses or

transfers, must submit a completed Form OSM-1, as well as any fee

payment due [to OSM].

North Dakota stated that it proposed to delete NDAC 69-05.2-13-01

because there is no Federal regulation requiring it and the information

contained in the report is readily available from OSM.

Because the Federal regulations do not require a State to mandate

that an operator provide the State, as well as OSM, with a Form OSM-1,

the Director finds that the proposed deletion of NDAC 69-05.2-13-01 is

not inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 870.15(c). The

Director approves this proposed revision.

2. NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1, Time Frame for Demonstrating Reclamation

Success

North Dakota proposed to add a new rule at NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1,

which states that as an alternative to meeting revegetation success

standards for the last two consecutive growing seasons of the

responsibility period, an operator may demonstrate that the applicable

standards have been achieved in any three of five consecutive years

starting no sooner than the eighth year of the responsibility period.

North Dakota's proposed rule explicitly states that the alternative

does not apply to demonstration of success on prime farmlands.

North Dakota submitted the following explanation for the proposed

rule:

This language will give the mining companies more flexibility in

using vegetation data collected during a number of years near the

end of the revegetation liability period. The new provision will

allow mining companies to use data from any three of the last five

years of the responsibility period, starting in year eight, to

provide reclamation success. Occasionally hail storms, insect

damage, very localized droughts, or other factors cause reduced

yields in the last year or two of the liability period. Under

current rules this can result in the bond being held for at least

two more years. For example, assume a mining company meets cropland

yield standards during the eighth and ninth years of the ten year

responsibility period and, during the tenth year, a hail storm

destroys the crop on the reclaimed land. Under the present rule, the

company could not use any of the data from the eighth and ninth

years and would have to meet the standards in the eleventh and

twelfth years before final bond release could be granted. However,

under the new proposal, a company would be eligible for final bond

release in the eleventh year if success standards are met that year.

In this example, data from the eighth, ninth and eleventh years

would be used to achieve reclamation success for three out of five

consecutive years.

North Dakota also clearly stated that separate standards apply to

reclaimed prime farmlands and that the new proposal would not affect

those standards.

In response to an OSM concern that the proposal lacked sufficient

justification for situations in which the revegetation success standard

is a reference area, North Dakota submitted additional information on

daily precipitation, climatology of hail, grasshopper biology and

management, and reference area location. Use of reference areas

generally involves direct annual comparison of vegetative cover and

production between the reference area and the revegetated area.

Reference areas are used, in part, to account for the impact of

climatic variation on both undisturbed and reestablished plant

communities in the vicinity of the mine. North Dakota's original

supporting information failed to explain why reference areas, which are

located close to the revegetated areas, would not experience the same

climatic variability or insect damage as the revegetated areas.

North Dakota provided four reasons that the proposed amendment

should be approved. First, the State has a semiarid climate where

vegetative growth is highly dependent upon rainfall during the growing

season. Precipitation records emphasize the localized nature of summer

rainfall events and amounts. For example, on May 22, 1997, Beulah

recorded 0.35 inch of rain, while Zap, located 7 miles away, received

0.57 inch. On July 11, 1997, Beulah received 1.50 inches while Zap

received 2.60 inches. As another example, on June 23, 1997, Underwood

received 0.73 inch, while Washburn, located 12 miles away, received

0.31 inch. On July 2, 1997, Underwood received 2.14 inches while

Washburn received 3.07 inches. Precipitation for the entire month of

May 1997 totaled 0.58 inch in Beulah, 0.97 inch in Zap, 1.02 inches in

Underwood, and 0.58 in Washburn. Because rainfall is the major limiting

factor in plant production in the Northern Great Plains, precipitation

differences could result in significant corresponding variations in

yield.

Second, much of the rainfall during the summer months in North

Dakota occurs as thunderstorms that may contain hail. The size and

areal distribution of the hailstones, in combination with the timing of

the hailstorms, may substantially reduce yields or completely destroy a

crop for a particular growing season. Hail damage can vary greatly over

short distances. In a particular year, a hailstorm could destroy the

crop on the reclaimed area without damaging the undisturbed reference

area located a few miles away, or vice versa.

Hailstorms are associated with the localized convective storms that

result in the variable precipitation amounts discussed above. In

general, areas with the most rainfall events also have the most hail

events. Of the hailstorms occurring in the coal mining regions of the

state (Regions 3 and 4) between 1976 and 1986, 19-24 percent were

severe or moderate. Both severe and moderate hailstorms are capable of

damaging crop production. Further, the most damaging hail occurred

during the months of July and August in Region 3 and June and July in

Region 4, key periods for plant growth and crop ripening.

[[Page 12898]]

Third, pests, such as grasshoppers, may have differential impacts

on lands only a few miles apart. Grasshopper survey information for

North Dakota demonstrates that grasshopper infestations are highly

erratic in distribution. In addition, North Dakota submitted a

publication, Grasshopper Biology and Management (Phillip A. Glogoza and

Michael J. Weiss, North Dakota State University Extension Service,

1997), stating that damage to small grains is generally concentrated

near field margins where grasses tend to be seeded. This damage pattern

may disproportionately impact reclaimed areas because only a part of

the field must be cultivated to prove productivity, the areas cropped

may be relatively narrow, and test plots are often surrounded by native

or tame pastureland or hayland seeded with a grass-legume mixture.

Conversely, the undisturbed reference area is frequently surrounded by

other cropland and thus may experience relatively little grasshopper

damage in comparison to the corresponding test plots in a reclaimed

area.

Fourth, some mining companies in the State have difficulty locating

suitable reference (or control) areas close to reclaimed lands. To find

undisturbed areas with similar soils and topography, the mining

companies may have to locate reference areas several miles away from

the reclaimed areas. In addition, mining companies must use equivalent

management practices on both reclaimed and reference areas. For this

reason, the companies prefer to have the same person managing both the

reclaimed and undisturbed areas, which can also affect the location of

reference areas. The greater the distance between the reclaimed and

reference areas, the greater the likelihood of differences in

precipitation or pest damage, which may result in widely varying yields

between the two areas in a given year. The State encourages companies

to locate reference areas as close to reclaimed areas as possible.

However, some of the North Dakota mines will disturb many thousands of

acres in large blocks, which means that establishing a suitable

undisturbed reference area nearby is not always possible. The distance

between reclaimed areas and their corresponding reference areas

sometimes exceeds 10 miles. OSM accepts North Dakota's rationale

justifying its proposed alternative to the current method for

determining revegetation success.

The Federal rules at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(3) require that revegetation

success standards be met during the last two consecutive years of the

10-year revegetation responsibility period in areas in which the

average annual precipitation is equal to or less than 26 inches. On

September 7, 1988, OSM revised 30 CFR 816.116(c)(2) to provide that in

areas with more than 26 inches of average annual precipitation the

vegetation parameters identified in 30 CFR 816.116(b) for grazing land,

pasture land, or cropland must equal to exceed the approved success

standards during the growing seasons of any two years of the 5-year

responsibility period, excluding the first year. This change eliminated

the requirement to measure revegetation success during the last two

years of the responsibility period in areas with more than 26 inches of

average annual precipitation.

North Dakota's proposal, which provides an option to demonstrate

revegetation success using measurements from any three of five

consecutive years, starting with the eighth years of the revegetation

responsibility period, affords greater flexibility than 30 CFR

816.116(c)(3) but less flexibility than 30 CFR 816.116(c)(2). The

amendment provides an additional safeguard by requiring that

revegetation success standards be met during at least three years of

the applicable portion of the revegetation responsibility period,

rather than just two as in 30 CFR 816.116(c)(2) and (c)(3).

Furthermore, it prohibits the inclusion of measurements taken during

the first seven years of the responsibility period. Hence, like 30 CFR

816.116(c)(3), the North Dakota proposal requires that revegetation

success standards be met during at least two years after the eighth

year of the revegetation responsibility period. This restriction

minimizes any potential impacts that augmentative practices, such as

fertilization or irrigation, might have on the productivity and

permanence of the reestablished plant communities.

For these reasons, the Director finds that the proposed North

Dakota rule allowing the use of data from any three of the last five

years of the responsibility period, starting in year eight, to

demonstrate achievement of revegetation success is no less effective

than the corresponding Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(3) in

achieving the revegetation requirements of sections 515(b)(19) and

(b)(20) of SMCRA.

3. NDAC 69-05.2-28-19, Inspection and Enforcement--Inspection of

Inactive Surface Coal Mining Operations

a. NDAC 69-05.2-28-19, Inspection Frequency. North Dakota proposed

at NDAC 69-05.2-28-19 one complete inspection per quarter and partial

inspections as necessary. This proposed rule is substantially identical

to the counterpart provisions in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

840.11(a) and (b). Therefore the Director finds that NDAC 69-05.2-28-19

is no less effective than 30 CFR 840.11(a) and (b), and approves it.

b. NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.1, Definition of Inactive Coal Mining

Operations. North Dakota proposed at NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.1 the first of

two alternative definitions of inactive coal mining operations.

Proposed NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.1 requires that surface coal mining

operations have permanently ceased, and all disturbed areas have been

reclaimed, and vegetation has been established in accordance with the

approved reclamation plan, and the lands are not contributing suspended

solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area in excess of the

requirements set by section 69-05.2-16-04. The Federal regulations at

30 CFR 840.11(f) state that an inactive surface coal mining and

reclamation operation is one for which: (1) the State regulatory

authority has secured from the permittee the written notice under

816.116(b) or 817.131(b) of this chapter for temporary cessation or (2)

Reclamation Phase II or defined at 800.40 has been completed and

liability of the permittee has been reduced by the State regulatory

authority. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(2) require,

prior to Phase II bond release (North Dakota's Third Stage bond

release), vegetation establishment and no contributions of suspended

solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area in excess of the

requirements set by Section 515(b)(10) of SMCRA and by subchapter K.

With the exception that NDAC 69-05.2-28-19 does not (1) require

that the liability of the permittee has been reduced by the regulatory

authority (RA) or (2) provide a definition of inactive surface coal

mining which requires a written notice from the permittee provided for

under 30 CFR 816.131(b) or 817.131(b), the proposed rule is identical

to the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 842.11(c)(2).

In a January 30, 1997 telephone conversation (administrative record

No. ND-Z-15) between OSM and North Dakota, North Dakota provided the

following four reasons for North Dakota's lack of a requirement that

the liability of the permittee has been reduced by the RA for

determining when a coal mining operation is inactive and therefore

subject to fewer inspections:

[[Page 12899]]

1. OSM's approval of a similar Ohio program amendment that OSM

approved on October 29, 1996 (Vol. 61, No. 210 FR 55748, 55749);

2. Monthly inspections of North Dakota's reclaimed mines where

mining has ceased and vegetation has been established is a waste of

time and resources, especially during North Dakota winters where

reclaimed mine sites are covered with snow;

3. OSM allows a lesser frequency for inspections at mines that have

temporarily ceased operations; and

4. North Dakota would verify via an inspection prior to the

declaration of ``inactive'' that Phase III Reclamation (the same as

Phase II under SMCRA) had been completed.

As North Dakota stated, OSM approved an amendment that allowed Ohio

to deem a coal mining operation inactive when Phase II reclamation

standards had been achieved that also deleted the requirement for the

release of phase II bond liability.

In its rationale for approving Ohio's state program amendment, OSM

cities the preamble to the final Federal regulation at 30 CFR 842.11

published on August 16, 1982 (47 FR 35620). The rationale was contained

in OSM's response to four commenters on the proposed rule 30 CFR

842.11(c)(2)(iii)(B) (published on December 1, 1981 (46 FR 58464); OSM

stated

the same policy considerations of efficiency in Federal programs

[should] apply to State programs (47 FR 35620, 35621; August 16,

1982).

The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 842.11(c)(2)(iii)(B) requires that

an inactive surface coal mining and reclamation operation is one in

which reclamation Phase II as defined at 30 CFR 800.40 has been

completed. In the final rule OSM affirmed its agreement with the

commenters and stated that:

The final rule allows States to distinguish between active and

inactive mines in the same manner as was proposed and is being

adopted for OSM when acting as the regulatory authority.

OSM, in its discussion of 30 CFR 842.11 responded to commenters

that wanted the requirement for Phase II bond release deleted

because it could cause ``OSM to continue monthly inspections long

after Phase II reclamation is completed.'' 47 FR at 35627 (August

16, 1982), as follows:

OSM agrees. In view of the broad discretion granted to OSM in

releasing a portion of the performance bond following completion of

Reclamation Phases I and II, the determination of a mine's status as

active or inactive should be based solely on the completion of

Reclamation Phase II.

The aforementioned position OSM took on August 16, 1982 has not

been rescinded; OSM has not changed its regulations at 30 CFR 800.40

which applies when a state is the regulatory authority.

The Director finds that proposed NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.1 is consistent

with and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

842.11(1)(c) and 800.40(c)(2) and approves it.

c. NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.2, definition of inactive surface coal mining

operations. North Dakota proposed at NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.2 the second of

the two alternative definitions of inactive surface coal mining

operations, which requires that the regulatory authority has granted

partial bond release for the disturbed areas. It has the same

requirements as Federal regulations at 30 CFR 840.11(f)(2) in that the

NDAC reference describes its Third Stage bond release which is the same

as OSM's Reclamation Phase II bond release at 30 CFR

800.40(c)(establishment of vegetation on the regraded mined lands).

Since this proposed rule is substantively identical to the

counterpart provision of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

840.11(f)(2), the Director finds that proposed NDAC 69-05.2-28-18.2 is

no less effective than 30 CFR 840.11(f)(2) and approves it.

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

Following are summaries of all substantive written comments on the

proposed amendment that were received by OSM, and OSM's responses to

them.

1. Public Comments

OSM invited public comments on the proposed amendment, but none

were received.

2. Federal Agency Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or

potential interest in the North Dakota program.

USDA Rural Development responded on September 25, 1997 that ``the

proposed changes are consistent with USDA Rural Development

construction policies (administrative record No. ND-Z-04).

USDA Agriculture Research Service responded on October 2, 1997 and

stated that they believed the changes proposed in the amendment ``are

necessary and an improvement.'' The Agriculture Research Service also

suggested revising the wording of the proposed rule to read, ``three

out of five consecutive years,'' instead of the way it currently reads,

``three out of consecutive five years'' (administrative record No. ND-

Z-05). In a November 12, 1998 telephone conversation (administrative

record No. 14), Director of the Reclamation Division, North Dakota

Public Service Commission, Jim Deutsch, stated that he would revise the

final rule to be, ``three out of five consecutive years.''

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers responded on October 16, 1997 that

``our review of the proposed changes found them to be satisfactory to

our agency'' (administrative record No. ND-Z-06).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded on December 17, 1997 and

stated that the ``proposed changes are logical and reasonable.'' The

letter also stated: ``I do not anticipate any significant impacts on

Fish and Wildlife Resources as a result of the proposed rules''

(administrative record No. ND-Z-08).

3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to solicit

the written concurrence of EPA with respect to those provisions of the

proposed 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.).

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from EPA (administrative record No. ND-Z-03). It

responded to OSM's request on September 30, 1997, and stated that it

concurred with the proposed modifications (administrative record No.

ND-Z-07).

4. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM solicited comments on the

proposed amendment from the SHPO and ACHP (administrative record No.

ND-Z-03). Neither SHPO nor ACHP responded to OSM's request.

V. Director's Decision

Based on the above findings, the Director approves North Dakota's

proposed amendment as submitted on August 29, 1997, and as supplemented

with additional explanatory information on April 23, 1998.

The Director approves, as discussed in:

Finding No. 1, NDAC 69-05.2-13-01, concerning the deletion of North

[[Page 12900]]

Dakota's requirement for mining companies to send the Coal Production

and Reclamation Fee Report to the North Dakota Public Service

Commission;

Finding No. 2, NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1, concerning the time frame

for demonstrating reclamation success; and

Finding No. 3, NDAC 69-05.2-28-19, concerning the inspection

frequency of inactive surface coal mining operations.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 934, codifying decisions

concerning the North Dakota 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

1. 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).

2. 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 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 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.

3. 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)).

4. 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.).

5. 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 that 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. 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 counterpart Federal regulations.

6. 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 934

Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: February 25, 1999.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 934--NORTH DAKOTA

1. The authority citation for part 934 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 934.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ``Date of Final Publication'' to read as

follows:

Sec. 934.15 Approval of North Dakota regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

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

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

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

* * * * * * *

August 29, 1997....................... March 16, 1999................ Rules: NDAC 69-05.2-13-01; NDAC 69-05.2-

22-07.4.1; NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.

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

[FR Doc. 99-6352 Filed 3-15-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-05-M