21694 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(d) Within 120 days of receiving

payments, the local government must

certify to BLM that it has made an

appropriate distribution of funds.

§ 1881.51 Are there general procedures

applicable to all PILT payments?

(a) The minimum payment that the

BLM will disburse to any unit of general

local government is $100.00 (one

hundred dollars).

(b) If Congress appropriates

insufficient monies to provide full

payment to each unit of general local

government during any fiscal year, the

BLM will reduce proportionally all

payments in that fiscal year.

§ 1881.52 May a State enact legislation to

reallocate or redistribute PILT payments?

A State may enact legislation to

reallocate or redistribute PILT

payments. If a State does enact

legislation, it must:

(1) Notify the BLM if it enacts

legislation which requires reallocating

or redistributing payments to smaller

units of general local government (see

31 U.S.C. 6907);

(2) Provide the BLM a copy of the

legislation within 60 days of enactment;

(3) Provide the name and address of

the State government office to which

BLM should send the payment;

(4) Distribute to its smaller units of

general local government within 30 days

of receiving the payment; and

(5) Not reduce the payment made to

smaller units of general local

government to pay the cost of State

legislation which reallocates or

redistributes payments.

§ 1881.53 What is BLM’s procedure on

PILT payments to a State that enacts

distribution legislation?

The BLM would:

(a) Notify the State that a single

payment will be disbursed to the

designated State government office

beginning with the Federal fiscal year

following the fiscal year in which the

State enacted legislation; and

(b) Provide the State with appropriate

information that identifies the

entitlement lands data on which BLM

bases the payment.

§ 1881.54 What happens if a State repeals

or amends distribution legislation?

(a) The State must immediately notify

the BLM in writing that it has repealed

or amended the legislation and furnish

BLM with a copy of the new law.

(b) The BLM must:

(1) Determine if the State’s process

complies with 31 U.S.C. 6907. If BLM

determines that it does not, we must

notify the designated State government

office that BLM will disburse payment

directly to eligible units of general local

government; and

(2) Start the payments with the

Federal fiscal year in which the BLM

receives a copy of the State’s

amendatory legislation. If BLM receives

a copy of the legislation after July 1,

payments made directly to eligible units

of general local government will not

begin until the next Federal fiscal year.

§ 1881.55 Can a unit of general local

government protest the results of payment

computations?

Any affected unit of general local

government may file a protest with the

BLM.

§ 1881.56 How does a unit of general local

government file a protest?

The protesting unit of general local

government must:

(a) Submit evidence to indicate the

possibility of error(s) in the

computations or the data on which BLM

bases the computations; and

(b) File the protest by the first

business day of the calendar year

following the end of the fiscal year for

which BLM made the payments.

§ 1881.57 Can a unit of general local

government appeal a rejection of a protest?

Any affected unit of general local

government may appeal BLM’s decision

to reject a protest to the Interior Board

of Land Appeals under the provisions of

43 CFR part 4.

[FR Doc. 00–10149 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 13 and 80

[WT Docket No. 00–48; RM–9499; FCC 00–

105]

Maritime Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission proposes to consolidate,

revise and streamline Rules governing

maritime communications. These rule

changes address new international

maritime requirements, improve the

operational ability of all users of marine

radios and remove unnecessary or

duplicative requirements from the

Commission’s Rules. This proposed

action will not only reduce significantly

the number of regulations applicable to

the maritime community, but by

removing duplicative regulations, it will

reduce the potential for confusion.

DATES: Comments are due July 24, 2000,

Reply Comment are due August 22,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Parties who choose to file

comments by paper must file an original

and four copies to the Commission’s

Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office

of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 445 12th

St., SW., Room TW–A325, Washington,

DC 20554. Comments may also be filed

using the Commission’s Electronic

Filing System, which can be accessed

via the Internet at www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith Fickner or Ghassan Khalek, Policy

and Rules Branch, Public Safety and

Private Wireless Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau at (202)

418–0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No.

00–48, FCC 00–105, adopted March 17,

2000, and released on March 24, 2000.

The full text of this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center,

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text may

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. The

full text may also be downloaded at:

www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/

2000/fcc00105.doc. Alternative formats

are available to persons with disabilities

by contacting Martha Contee at (202)

418–0260 or TTY (202) 418–2555.

In this Notice of Proposed Rule

Making, the Commission seeks

comment on the proposals: (1) To

modify the Commission’s Rules to

reflect revised international standards

and recommendations which were

endorsed by the International Maritime

Organization (IMO) and the

International Telecommunication Union

(ITU), many at the initiation of the

United States; and to reflect significant

changes in IMO and ITU performance

standards and regulations; (2) to allow

radio-teletypewriter, data, telemetry,

and telecommand transmissions on

frequencies reserved for Morse code

transmissions; (3) to apply the

Commission’s Global Maritime Distress

and Safety System (GMDSS) Rules, or

alternative safety measures, to the

commercial fishing industry; (4) to

create a new Restricted GMDSS Radio

Operator License in order to provide a

subordinate class of GMDSS license for

radio operators aboard ships that

operate exclusively within Sea Area A1

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21695

1 5 U.S.C. 603.

2 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et.

seq., has been amended by the Contract With

America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law

104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of

the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

3 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

(an area extending approximately 20

miles from the coast); (5) to accept a

proof of passing certificate from the

United States Coast Guard training

program, which includes both

theoretical examinations and practical

demonstrations of the candidate’s

ability to operate GMDSS equipment, as

evidence that an applicant has met the

obligations for any GMDSS operator

license issued by the Commission; and

(6) to remove the certification for Class

A, B, and S emergency position

indicating radiobeacons, which operate

at 121.5 MHz and 243 MHz, due to their

ineffectiveness in lifesaving operations.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 1

requires that an agency prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis for notice

and comment rulemakings, unless the

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not,

if promulgated, have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.’’ 2 In this

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the

Commission proposes to consolidate,

revise, and streamline the Commission’s

Rules governing maritime

communications. The purpose of these

proposed rule changes is to address new

international maritime requirements,

improve the operational ability of all

users of marineradios and remove

unnecessary or duplicative

requirements from the Commission’s

Rules. In an effort to clarify the existing

regulations, the Commission also

proposes to make minor and nonsubstantive modifications to Part 80 of

the Commission’s Rules. The proposed

rule changes do not impose any

additional compliance burden on small

entities regulated by the Commission.

Accordingly, the Commission certifies,

pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA,

that the rules proposed in this Notice of

Proposed Rule Making will not, if

promulgated, have a significant

economic impact upon a substantial

number of small entities, as that term is

defined by the RFA.3 The Commission

shall send a copy of this Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, including a copy

of this certification, to the Chief Counsel

for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration in accordance with the

RFA. We shall also publish a copy of

this certification in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects 47 CFR Parts 13 and 80

Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–10091 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. RSPA–99–6355; Notice 3]

Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity

Management in High Consequence

Areas

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes

regulations to test, repair and validate

through analysis the integrity of most

hazardous liquid pipelines that could

affect populated areas, commercially

navigable waterways, and areas

unusually sensitive to environmental

damage. RSPA’s Office of Pipeline

Safety (OPS) proposes to define these

areas as high consequence areas. In

these proposed high consequence areas,

OPS is proposing that an operator

develop and follow an integrity

management program that continually

assesses and evaluates the integrity of

those pipelines that could affect a high

consequence area, through internal

inspection or pressure testing, and data

integration and analysis.

Through this required program, OPS

expects operators to comprehensively

evaluate the entire range of threats to

pipeline integrity by analyzing all

available information about the pipeline

and consequences of a failure. This

would include information on the

potential for damage due to excavation,

data gathered through the required

integrity assessment, results of other

inspections and tests required by the

pipeline safety regulations, including

corrosion control monitoring and

cathodic protection surveys, and

information about how a failure could

affect the high consequence area, such

as location of water intakes.

The proposed rule requires an

operator to take prompt action to

address the integrity issues raised by the

assessment and analysis. This means an

operator must evaluate and repair all

defects that could reduce a pipeline’s

integrity according to specified risk

criteria. The integrity of these pipelines

would be further assured through other

remedial actions, and preventive and

mitigative measures.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on this notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by June

23, 2000. Late filed comments will be

considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written

comments by mail or delivery to the

Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590–0001. It is open from 10:00 a.m.

to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except federal holidays. You also may

submit written comments to the docket

electronically. To do so, log on to the

following Internet Web address: http://

dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help &

Information’’ for instructions on how to

file a document electronically. All

written comments should identify the

docket and notice numbers stated in the

heading of this notice. Anyone desiring

confirmation of mailed comments must

include a self-addressed stamped

postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Israni, (202) 366–4571, or by email: mike.israni@rspa.dot.gov,

regarding the subject matter of this

proposed rule, or the Dockets Facility

(202) 366–9329, for copies of this

proposed rule or other material in the

docket. All materials in this docket may

be accessed electronically at http://

dms.dot.gov. General information about

the RSPA/Office of Pipeline Safety

programs may be obtained by accessing

OPS’s Internet home page at http://

ops.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This proposed rulemaking is the

culmination of experience gained from

inspections, accident investigations and

risk management and system integrity

initiatives. This experience has given us

the foundation for proposing a

rulemaking that addresses in a

comprehensive manner NTSB

recommendations, Congressional

mandates and pipeline safety and

environmental issues raised over the

years.

Accident analyses

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) and

National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) investigations and analyses of

major pipeline incidents have

emphasized the importance of ensuring

safety and environmental protection in

areas of population density and in areas

unusually sensitive to environmental