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. 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. Since this rule would apply to public use of federally owned and managed refuges, it would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule would 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. In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule would not have significant takings implications. This rule would affect only visitors to the refuge and describe what they can do while they are on the refuge. As discussed in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act section above, this rule would not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment under E.O. 13132. In preparing the CCP for the refuge, we worked closely with the four States bordering the refuge, and this rule reflects the CCP.
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.). 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. 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. 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. 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 leasing and management program, which does not apply on Indian Tribal lands. At present, there are no geothermal leases or agreements on Tribal or allotted Indian lands. If the Bureau of Indian Affairs should ever issue any leases or agreements, BLM would then likely be responsib...
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 an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104–4).
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.
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. [FR Doc. 98–22652 Filed 8–24–98; 8:45 am] 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;
