38724 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

September 16, 1999. FAA Order

7400.9G is incorporated by reference in

14 CFR 71.1. The offshore airspace area

described in this document will be

published in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation only involves an established

body of technical regulations for which

frequent and routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally

current. Therefore this regulation: (1) Is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this rule, when

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO) Considerations

Since part of this rule effects

navigable airspace outside the United

States, the notice of proposed

rulemaking was submitted to the

Department of State and the Department

of Defense in accordance with the ICAO

International Standards and

Recommended Practices.

The application of International

Standards and Recommended Practices

by the FAA, Office of Air Traffic

Airspace Management, in areas outside

U.S. domestic airspace, is governed by

the Convention on International Civil

Aviation. Specifically, the FAA is

governed by Article 12 and Annex 11 of

the Convention, which pertain to the

establishment of necessary air

navigational facilities and services to

promote the safe, orderly, and

expeditious flow of civil air traffic. The

purpose of Article 12 and Annex 11 is

to ensure that civil aircraft operations

on international air routes are

performed under uniform conditions.

The International Standards and

Recommended Practices in Annex 11

apply to airspace under the jurisdiction

of a contracting state, derived from

ICAO. Annex 11 provisions apply when

air traffic services are provided and a

contracting state accepts the

responsibility of providing air traffic

services over high seas or in airspace of

undetermined sovereignty. A

contracting state accepting this

responsibility may apply the

International Standards and

Recommended Practices that are

consistent with standards and practices

utilized in its domestic jurisdiction.

In accordance with Article 3 of the

Convention, state-owned aircraft are

exempt from the Standards and

Recommended Practices of Annex 11.

The United States is a contracting state

to the Convention. Article 3(d) of the

Convention provides that participating

state aircraft will be operated in

international airspace with due regard

for the safety of civil aircraft.

Because this amendment involves, in

part, the designation of navigable

airspace outside of the United States,

the Administrator has consulted with

the Secretary of State and the Secretary

of Defense in accordance with the

provisions of Executive Order 10854.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9G, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 1, 1999, and effective

September 16, 1999, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6007 Offshore Airspace Areas

* * * * *

East Coast Low [Revised]

That airspace extending upward from

2,000 feet MSL bounded on the west and

north by a line 12 miles from and parallel to

the U.S. shoreline and on the south and east

by a line beginning at lat. 39°25′46′′ N., long.

74°02′34′′ W.; to lat. 39°02′05′′ N., long.

73°39′30′′ W.; to lat. 40°04′20′′ N., long.

72°30′00′′ W.; to lat. 40°37′14′′ N., long.

72°30′00′′ W.; and that airspace bounded on

the west and north by a line 12 miles from

and parallel to the U.S. shoreline and on the

south and east by a line beginning at lat.

40°41′00′′ N., long. 72°17′00′′ W., thence

along the northern boundary of Warning

Areas W–106B and W–105A to lat. 40°58′33′′

N., long. 70°59′00′′ W.; to lat. 40°48′30′′ N.,

long. 70°30′00′′ W.; to lat. 40°59′00′′ N., long.

69°40′00′′ W.; to lat. 41°30′00′′ N., long.

69°10′00′′ W.; to lat. 42°05′00′′ N., long.

69°30′00′′ W.; to lat. 42°17′00′′ N., long.

69°49′30′′ W.; to lat. 42°17′00′′ N., long.

70°00′00′′ W.; to lat. 43°17′00′′ N., long.

70°00′00′′ W.; to lat. 43°33′56′′ N., long.

69°29′12′′ W.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15,

2000.

Reginald C. Matthews,

Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.

[FR Doc. 00–15811 Filed 6–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 901

[SPATS No. AL–069–FOR]

Alabama Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

approving an amendment to the

Alabama regulatory program (Alabama

program) under the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA). Alabama proposed revisions

to and additions of regulations

concerning removal of coal incidental to

government-financed construction and

the suitability of topsoil substitutes or

supplements. Alabama also corrected

citation references. Alabama intends to

revise its program to be consistent with

the corresponding Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arthur W. Abbs, Director, Birmingham

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining,

135 Gemini Circle, Suite 215,

Homewood, Alabama 35209. Telephone:

(205) 290–7282. Internet:

aabbs@balgw.osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Alabama Program

II. Submission of the Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Alabama Program

On May 20, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Alabama program. You can find

background information on the Alabama

program, including the Secretary’s

findings, the disposition of comments,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 38725

and the conditions of approval in the

May 20, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR

22062). You can find later actions on the

Alabama program at 30 CFR 901.15 and

901.16.

II. Submission of the Amendment

By letter dated April 11, 2000

(Administrative Record No. AL–0631),

Alabama sent us an amendment to its

program under SMCRA and the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(b).

Alabama sent the amendment in

response to our letters dated January 13,

1998, and October 15, 1998

(Administrative Record Nos. AL–0577

and AL–0587 respectively), that we sent

to Alabama under 30 CFR 732.17(c). The

amendment also includes changes made

at Alabama’s own initiative. Alabama

proposes to amend the Alabama Surface

Mining Commission (ASMC) rules.

We announced receipt of the

amendment in the April 26, 2000,

Federal Register (65 FR 24433). In the

same document, we opened the public

comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing or

meeting on the adequacy of the

amendment. The public comment

period closed on May 26, 2000. Because

no one requested a public hearing or

meeting, we did not hold one.

III. Director’s Findings

Following, under SMCRA and the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15

and 732.17, are the Director’s findings

concerning the amendment to the

Alabama program.

A. 880–X–2A–.06, Definitions

1. Alabama revised the definition of

‘‘government-finance construction’’ to

read as follows:

Government-finance construction means

construction funded 50 percent or more by

funds appropriated from a government

financing agency’s budget or obtained from

general revenue bonds. Funding at less than

50 percent may qualify if the construction is

undertaken as an approved reclamation

project under Title IV of the Federal Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act, 30

U.S.C. 1201 et seq., as amended.

Construction funded through government

financing agency guarantees, insurance,

loans, funds obtained through industrial

revenue bonds or their equivalent, or in-kind

payments does not qualify as governmentfinanced construction.

The revised definition is substantively

the same as the Federal definition of

‘‘government-financed construction’’

found at 30 CFR 707.5. Therefore, we

find that Alabama’s definition is no less

effective than the Federal definition,

and we are approving it.

2. In our letter dated October 15,

1998, we notified Alabama that its

definitions of ‘‘material damage’’ and

‘‘occupied residential dwelling and

structures related thereto’’ contained

citation reference errors. Alabama

corrected the definitions by removing a

reference to 880–X–8I–.20 and adding a

reference to 880–X–8I–.10. We find that

the revised citation references are

consistent with the citation references

in the counterpart Federal definitions,

and we are approving the revisions.

B. 880–X–2D–.04, Applicability

Alabama added language to Rule 880–

X–2D–.04(1) to provide that with the

exception of the requirements of Rule

880–X–2D–.06, if applicable, coal

extraction which is incidental to

government-financed construction is

exempt from the Alabama Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act

and its implementing regulations.

As discussed below in finding C,

Alabama’s proposed exception to the

exemption under Subchapter 880–X–2D

would be applicable for coal removal

incidental to government-financed

construction where funding for the

project is less than 50 percent and the

construction is undertaken as an

approved project under Title IV of

SMCRA. Specifically, Rule 880–X–2D–

.06 provides additional requirements for

such coal removal when it is undertaken

as part of a project under Alabama’s

approved Abandoned Mine Land

Reclamation Program. Although the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 707

do not contain this exception language,

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part

874 were revised to provide additional

requirements for coal removal incident

to AML projects receiving less than 50

percent government funding. Therefore,

we find that the addition of the new

exception language will not make Rule

880–X–2D–.04(1) less effective than the

counterpart Federal regulation at 30

CFR 707.11(a).

C. 880–X–2D–.06, Additional

Requirements for Coal Removal

Incidental to Abandoned Mine Land

Projects

Alabama proposes to add this new

rule to provide additional requirements

that apply to coal removal incidental to

AML reclamation projects. The

requirements of this rule apply to coal

removal incidental to governmentfinanced construction where funding for

the project is less than 50 percent and

the construction is undertaken as an

approved reclamation project under

Title IV of SMCRA. Paragraph (1)

requires the AML contractor and any

subcontractor involved in the removal

of coal from, or processing of coal on,

the project site to obtain or possess a

valid license under Chapter 880–X–6 of

Alabama’s regulations. Paragraph (2)

requires the AML contractor to identify

the prospective purchasers or end users

of all coal that he or she will extract

under the project before the ASMC can

grant concurrence under the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 874.17. Paragraph

(3) requires the AML contractor to

maintain records of the exact tonnage of

coal removed, as well as the names and

addresses of all purchasers or end users

of the coal at the project site. The AML

contractor must make these records

available to the ASMC upon request.

Paragraph (4) provides that this

exemption applies only to coal located

within the boundaries of the approved

construction project. In addition,

removal of the coal must be necessary

to achieve the objectives of the AML

reclamation project. Paragraph (5)

provides that both the Alabama

Department of Industrial Relations and

the ASMC must approve the project in

accordance with the provisions of the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 874.17

before the AML contractor can remove

coal under Subchapter 880–X–2D.

Finally, paragraph (6) provides that all

coal removal under this exemption must

be under the direct supervision of the

AML contractor. The AML contractor is

liable for any violations of these

regulations.

This new rule establishes the

conditions under which ASMC, as the

Title V regulatory authority, will

approve an exemption for the removal

of coal incidental to performance of a

government-financed construction

project where government funding for

the project is less than 50 percent and

the construction in undertaken as an

approved AML reclamation project

under Alabama’s approved Abandoned

Mine Land Reclamation Program. There

are no counterparts in the Federal

regulations at 30 CFR Part 707 for the

additional requirements proposed at

Rule 880–X–2D–.06. However, the

requirements are not inconsistent with

the provisions in 30 CFR Part 707. Also,

Alabama’s proposed regulation at

paragraph (5) ensures the ASMC and the

Alabama AML agency’s actions are

consistent with the Federal regulations

at 30 CFR 874.17, which provide AML

agency procedures for coal removal

incident to reclamation projects

receiving less than 50 percent

government funding. The Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 874.17(a) requires

the AML agency to make specific

determinations in consultation with the

Title V regulatory authority. The Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 874.17(b) requires

the AML agency to concur with the Title

38726 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

V regulatory authority in specific

determinations before proceeding with

an AML reclamation project that

involves coal removal incident to

government-financed construction with

less than 50 percent government

financing. These consultations and

concurrences are intended to ensure the

appropriateness of the project being

undertaken as a Title IV AML project

and not under the Title V regulatory

program. Therefore, we are approving

Alabama’s new regulation at Rule 880–

X–2D–.06.

D. 880–X–8I–.08(2)(d), Reclamation

Plan: General Requirements; Topsoil

In response to our letter dated January

13, 1998, Alabama added two additional

sentences to Rule 880–X–8I–.08(2)(d).

The revised regulation reads as follows:

A plan for removal, storage, and

redistribution of topsoil, subsoil and other

material to meet the requirements of Rules

880–X–10D–.07—880–X–10D–.11. A

demonstration of the suitability of topsoil

substitutes or supplements shall be based

upon analysis of the thickness of soil

horizons, total depth, texture, percent coarse

fragments, pH, and areal extent of the

different kinds of soils. The regulatory

authority may require other chemical and

physical analyses, field-site trials, or

greenhouse tests if determined to be

necessary or desirable to demonstrate the

suitability of the topsoil substitutes or

supplements.

Alabama’s revised regulation at Rule

880–X–8I–.08(2)(d) is substantively the

same as the counterpart Federal

regulation at 30 CFR 784.13(b)(4), and

we are approving it.

E. 880–X–8I–.10, Subsidence Control

Plan

In our letter dated October 15, 1998,

we notified Alabama that its regulation

at 880–X–8I-.10(2)(h) contained a

citation reference error. Alabama

corrected its regulation by removing a

reference to 880–X–10D–.12(10) and

adding a reference to 880–X–10D–12(9).

We find that the revised citation

reference is consistent with the citation

reference in the counterpart Federal

regulation, and we are approving the

revision.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Federal Agency Comments

On April 14, 2000, under section

503(b) of SMCRA and 30 CFR

732.17(h)(11)(i) of the Federal

regulations, we requested comments on

the amendment from various Federal

agencies with an actual or potential

interest in the Alabama program

(Administrative Record No. AL–0633).

By letter dated May 2, 2000

(Administrative Record No. AL–0638),

the Mine Safety and Health

Administration responded that it had no

comments on the proposal.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we

are required to obtain the written

concurrence of the EPA for those

provisions of the program amendment

that relate to air or water quality

standards issued under the authority of

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et

seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

7401 et seq.). None of the revisions that

Alabama proposed to make in this

amendment pertain to air or water

quality standards. Therefore, we did not

ask the EPA for its concurrence.

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we

requested comments on the amendment

from the EPA (Administrative Record

No. AL–0633). The EPA did not respond

to our request.

State Historical Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are

required to request comments from the

SHPO and ACHP on amendments that

may have an effect on historic

properties. On April 14, 2000, we

requested comments on Alabama’s

amendment (Administrative Record No.

AL–0633). By letter dated May 17, 2000

(Administrative Record No. AL–0639),

the Alabama Historical Commission

(AHC) provided the following

comments for our consideration:

1. The AHC commented that

Alabama’s regulation at 880–X–2D–

.04(1) appears to state that coal

extraction is exempt from these

regulations and asked us to clarify

Alabama’s provision. The AHC thought

that this statement appeared to be

contrary to Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

Response: The exemption for

extraction of coal which is incidental to

Federal, State, or local governmentfinanced highway or other construction

is authorized by section 528(2) of

SMCRA. Alabama’s existing regulations

at Subchapter 880–X–2D exempt the

extraction of coal which is incidental to

Federal, State, or local governmentfinanced highway or other construction

from the State Act and Alabama’s

regulations when that construction

meets specified criteria. Alabama’s

current regulations limit the exemption

to those construction projects that are

funded 50 percent or more by a

government agency. As discussed in

finding A.1, the proposed revision

extends the exemption to government

funding at less than 50 percent if the

construction is undertaken as an

approved reclamation project under

Title IV of SMCRA. As discussed in

finding B, Alabama revised its

applicability regulation at 880–X–2D–

.04(1) to specify additional criteria that

would apply to coal extraction under

the new exemption. Alabama’s

proposed regulations at Subchapter

880–X–2D are no less effective than the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 707.

Compliance with Section 106 is not

jeopardized by the proposed revision

because it requires that, for coal

extraction with less than 50 percent

government funding to be exempt from

the State Act and regulations, it must be

included as an integral part of an

approved abandoned mine land

reclamation project that is administered

by the State Abandoned Mine Land

(AML) Reclamation Program. State AML

Programs are required to comply with

the requirements of Section 106 for all

reclamation projects. The Alabama

Historical Commission will be

consulted prior to any coal extraction

activities authorized under Alabama’s

proposed revision because such

consultation is required by the Office of

Surface Mining as part of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

review of all AML reclamation projects.

2. AHC commented that historical and

archaeological should be added to the

definition of a ‘‘person having an

interest which is or may be adversely

affected * * * . ’’

Response: Alabama is not proposing

to revise this previously approved

definition. Also, Alabama’s definition is

substantively identical to the Federal

definition at 30 CFR 700.5. However, a

copy of your comments will be

forwarded to Alabama for consideration

in a future rulemaking.

3. The AHC provided the following

additional comments:

Cultural resource consultation should be

required when activities will affect

previously undisturbed areas. This should

include any undisturbed areas impacted

during reclamation projects.

The Alabama Historical Commission

should be consulted if human remains or

historic cemeteries are known or expected to

be in the area of effect, in accordance with

the Alabama Burial Act.

Response: Alabama is not proposing

any revisions to its regulations

concerning the consideration that must

be given to historic properties, cultural

resources, or cemeteries. Also,

Alabama’s currently approved

regulations require coordination with

requirements under other laws,

including the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966. However, a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 38727

copy of your comments will be

forwarded to Alabama for consideration

in a future rulemaking.

Public Comments

We asked for public comments on the

amendment, but did not receive any.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, we

approve the amendment as sent to us by

Alabama on April 11, 2000. We approve

the rules that Alabama proposed with

the provision that they be published in

identical form to the rules sent to and

reviewed by OSM and the public.

To implement this decision, we are

amending the Federal regulations at 30

CFR Part 901, which codify decisions

concerning the Alabama program. We

are making this final rule effective

immediately to expedite the State

program amendment process and to

encourage Alabama to bring its program

into conformity with the Federal

standards. SMCRA requires consistency

of State and Federal standards.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12630—Takings

This rule does not have takings

implications. This determination is

based on the analysis performed for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

This rule does not have federalism

implications. SMCRA delineates the

roles of the Federal and State

governments with regard to the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations. One of the

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a

nationwide program to protect society

and the environment from the adverse

effects of surface coal mining

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of

SMCRA requires that State laws

regulating surface coal mining and

reclamation operations be ‘‘in

accordance with’’ the requirements of

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires

that State programs contain rules and

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary

under SMCRA.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice

Reform

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and

has determined that, to the extent

allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and

732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed

State regulatory programs and program

amendments submitted by the States

must be based solely on a determination

of whether the submittal is consistent

with SMCRA and its implementing

Federal regulations and whether the

other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730,

731, and 732 have been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed State regulatory program

provision does not constitute a major

Federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has

been made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, federal, state, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S. based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the

fact that the State submittal which is the

subject of this rule is based upon

counterpart Federal regulations for

which an analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the Federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 901

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: June 6, 2000.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent

Regional Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Part 901 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 901—ALABAMA

1. The authority citation for Part 901

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 901.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 901.15 Approval of Alabama regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

38728 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Original amendment submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

*******

April 11, 2000 ....................... June 22, 2000 .................... 880–X–2A–.06; 880–X–2D–.04(1) and .06; 880–X–8I–.08(2)(d); 880–X–8I–

.10(2)(h).

[FR Doc. 00–15835 Filed 6–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 668, 682, 685 and 692

Student Assistance General

Provisions, Federal Family Education

Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal

Direct Loan Program, and State

Student Incentive Grant Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations.

SUMMARY: The Secretary makes

technical amendments to the Student

Assistance General Provisions, Federal

Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program,

William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan

Program, and the State Student

Incentive Grant (SSIG) Program

regulations. These amendments are

necessary to change the name of the

SSIG Program to the Leveraging

Educational Assistance Partnership

(LEAP) Program, correct crossreferences, and delete obsolete

references. These technical amendments

incorporate changes made to the Higher

Education Act of 1965, as amended

(HEA), by the Higher Education

Amendments of 1998 (1998

Amendments).

EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations take

effect June 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Jackie Butler, U.S. Department of

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,

Regional Office Building 3, Room 3045,

Washington, DC 20202–5447.

Telephone: (202) 708–8242. If you use a telecommunications

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call

the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternate

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because

the Higher Education Amendments

renamed the State Student Incentive

Grant (SSIG) Program the Leveraging

Educational Assistance Partnership

(LEAP) Program, we are making

conforming name changes to the

Student Assistance General Provisions

regulations, 34 CFR part 668, FFEL

Program regulations, 34 CFR part 682,

William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan

Program regulations, 34 CFR part 685,

and SSIG Program regulations, 34 CFR

part 692. We are also correcting crossreferences and removing obsolete

references. Therefore: • We have replaced references to

‘‘institution of higher education’’

throughout 34 CFR part 692 with

‘‘institution’’ to reflect the type of

institutions described in § 668.1(b) of

the Student Assistance General

Provisions regulations, and corrected

other cross-references to various terms

now defined in 34 CFR parts 600 and

668. • We have removed references to

section 1203 of the HEA throughout 34

CFR part 692 to reflect that this section

was eliminated by the 1998

Amendments.

• We have removed OMB control

numbers after §§ 692.20, 692.21 and

692.40.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

It is the practice of the Secretary to

offer interested parties the opportunity

to comment on proposed regulations.

However, these regulations merely

reflect statutory changes, correct crossreferences, and remove obsolete

regulatory provisions. The changes do

not establish or affect substantive

policy. Therefore, the Secretary has

concluded that these regulations are

technical in nature and do not

necessitate public comment. Therefore,

the Secretary finds that such a

solicitation would be unnecessary and

contrary to the public interest under 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

For the same reasons, the Secretary

has determined, under section 492(b)(2)

of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as

amended, that these regulations should

not be subject to negotiated rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The Secretary certifies that these

regulations would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

affected by these regulations are small

institutions of higher education.

Although States and State agencies are

impacted by these regulations, they are

not defined as ‘‘small entities’’ in the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. These

regulations contain technical

amendments designed to clarify and

correct current regulations. The changes

will not have a significant economic

impact on the institutions, State or State

agencies affected.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

These regulations have been

examined under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and have been

found to contain no information

collection requirements.

Intergovernmental Review

The LEAP Program is subject to

Executive Order 12372 and the

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The

objective of the Executive order is to

foster an intergovernmental partnership

and a strengthened federalism by

relying on processes developed by State

and local governments for coordination

and review of proposed Federal

financial assistance.

In accordance with the order, we

intend this document to provide early

notification of the Department’s specific

plans and actions for this program.

Assessment of Educational Impact

Based on our own review, we have

determined that these final regulations

do not require transmission of

information that any other agency or

authority of the United States gathers or

makes available.

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view this document in text

or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF) on the Internet at the following

sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

http://ifap.ed.gov/csb_html/fedlreg.htm

To use the PDF, you must have the

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is

available free at the first of the previous

sites. If you have questions about using

the PDF, call the U.S. Government

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington,

DC area, at (202) 512–1530.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register. Free Internet access to the official

edition of the Federal Register and the Code

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO