                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 00-2430



NEAL BLANKENSHIP,

                                                          Petitioner,

          versus


ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

                                                         Respondents.



On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(99-1194-BLA, 99-1194-BLA-A, 98-1011-BLA)


Submitted:   April 10, 2001                   Decided:   May 18, 2001


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Neal Blankenship, Petitioner Pro Se. Martin Ellison Hall, JACKSON
& KELLY, Lexington, Kentucky; Patricia May Nece, Jeffrey Steven
Goldberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for
Respondents.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Neal Blankenship seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s

decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial

of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West

1986 & Supp. 2000).   Our review of the record discloses that the

Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without

reversible error.   Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

Board.*   See Blankenship v. Island Creek Coal Co., Nos. 99-1194-

BLA; 99-1194-BLA-A; 98-1011-BLA (Oct. 31, 2000).   We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.




                                                          AFFIRMED




     *
       We have considered the recent revisions to the regulations
implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act, see Regulations Imple-
menting the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as
amended; 65 Fed. Reg. 79,919 (December 20, 2000), and have deter-
mined that the revisions do not affect the outcome of this case.


                                  2
