Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires that a Federal agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before issuing a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2015, that inflation-adjusted amount in current dollars is approximately $146 million. The Department of Defense has determined that this proposed regulatory action will not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of that amount or more in any one year. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency that is proposing a rule to provide a regulatory flexibility analysis or to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department of Defense certifies that this proposed regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities beyond any impact due to provisions of it that implement OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 200. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; 5 CFR part 1320, appendix A.1) (PRA), the Department of Defense has determined that there are no new collections of information contained in this proposed regulatory action. Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it proposes a regulation that has Federalism implications. This proposed regulatory action does not have any Federalism implications. Business and Industry, Colleges and universities, Cooperative agreements, Grants administration, Hospitals, Indians, Nonprofit organizations, Small business, State and local governments. ■ Accordingly, 2 CFR chapter XI, subchapter C is proposed to be amended by adding part 1120 to read as follows:
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.), that would result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $151 million (which is the value of $100 million in 2012 after adjusting for inflation) or more in any 1 year. A rule has Federalism implications if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on the States. FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and determined that it does not have Federalism implications. This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This final rule will not impose an unfunded mandate under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of $100 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private sector. This final rule is the least burdensome alternative that achieves this objective of X.X. xxxxxx. We have analyzed this final rule for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and have concluded that, under the categorical exclusions provision in section 4.05 of Maritime Administrative Order (MAO) 600–1, ‘‘Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,’’ 50 FR 11606 (March 22, 1985), neither the preparation of an Environmental Assessment, an Environmental Impact Statement, nor a Finding of No Significant Impact for this rulemaking is required. This final rule does not change the environmental effects of the current M&R Pilot Program and thus no further analysis under NEPA is required. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.), this rulemaking contains no new information collection and record keeping requirements that require OMB approval. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you may visit xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx. Assistance payments, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. ■ Accordingly, 46 CFR Chapter II, Subchapter C, Part 296 is amended as follows:
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The OTS has determined that the requirements of this final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year. Accordingly, a budgetary impact statement is not required under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This final rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $148.8 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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 various levels of government. The Agencies analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications. The Agencies also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States’ ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. The NPRM invited State and local governments with an interest in this rulemaking to comment on the effect that adoption of specific proposals may have on State or local governments. No State or local governments provided comments on this issue. Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Indian tribal government representatives in the development of rules that ‘‘significantly or uniquely affect’’ Indian communities and that impose ‘‘substantial and direct compliance costs’’ on such communities. The Agencies analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, and determined that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal law. The Agencies received one comment in response to their request in the NPRM for comments from Indian tribal governments on the effect that adoption of specific proposals might have on Indian communities. One federally recognized Indian Tribe commented that a tribal summary impact statement was in order. The Indian tribe indicated that it was concerned that a shortened review period for ...
