Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.): This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector, in the aggregate, of $100 million or more per year; nor does this rule have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments. The rule would impose no requirements on any of these entities. We have already shown, in the previous discussions and in the RFA threshold analysis, that the changes this rule makes will not have effects approaching $100 million per year on the private sector. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we make the following findings:
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This proposed rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector, in the aggregate, of $100 million or more per year; nor does this proposed rule has a significant or unique effect on state, local, or Tribal governments. The rule would impose no requirements on any of these entities. We have already shown, in the previous paragraphs of this section of the preamble, that the change proposed in this rule would not have effects approaching $100 million per year on the private sector. Therefore, BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings) The proposed rule is not a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. A takings implication assessment is not required, since the proposed rule does not authorize any specific activities that would result in any effects on private property. Therefore, the Department of the Interior has determined that the rule would not cause a taking of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The proposed rule would not have federalism implications. The rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the levels of government. It would not apply to states or local governments or state or local governmental entities. The management of Federal geothermal leases is the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior. The proposed rule would not alter any lease management or revenue sharing provisions with the states, nor does it impose any costs to the states. Therefore a federalism assessment is not required. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform Under Executive Order 12988, we have determined that this proposed rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have found that this rule may include policies that have tribal implications. The proposed rule would make changes in the Federal geothermal...
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). This proposal would not meet the definition of a Federal mandate because the resulting annual State expenditures would not exceed the minimum threshold. The program is voluntary and States that choose to apply and qualify would receive grant funds.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply to proposed or final rules that enforce constitutional rights of individuals or enforce any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability. Since the final rule is issued under the authority of section 508, part of title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which establishes civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities, an assessment of the rule’s effects on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector is not required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1194 Civil rights, Communications equipment, Computer technology, Electronic products, Government employees, Government procurement, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications. Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx, Xx.,
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), P.L. 104–4, generally requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their ‘‘regulatory actions’’ on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. UMRA uses the term ‘‘regulatory actions’’ to refer to regulations. (See, e.g., UMRA section 201, ‘‘Each agency shall . . . assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions . . . (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law)’’ (emphasis added)). UMRA section 102 defines ‘‘regulation’’ and ‘‘rule’’ by reference to section 658 of Title 2 of the U.S. Code, which in turn defines ‘‘regulation’’ and ‘‘rule’’ by reference to section 601(2) of the RFA. That section of the RFA defines ‘‘rule’’ as ‘‘any rule for which the agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or any other law ’’ NPDES general permits are not ‘‘rules’’ under the APA and thus not subject to the APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. NPDES general permits are also not subject to such a requirement under the Clean Water Act (CWA). While EPA publishes a notice to solicit public comment on draft general permits, it does so pursuant to the CWA section 402(a) requirement to provide ‘‘an opportunity for a hearing.’’ Thus, NPDES general permits are not ‘‘rules’’ for UMRA purposes but are treated with rule-like procedures. Signed this 17th day of August, 1998. Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xx., Deputy Director, Water Quality Protection Division (6WQ), EPA Region 6. [FR Doc. 98–22652 Filed 8–24–98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), as well as Executive Order 12875, this proposed rule does not include any federal mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, which may impose an annual burden of $100 million.
