62614 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Description

(See corresponding narrative above)

<Cost>/Benefit Amount

First Year Subsequent Years

Indian Lessors in Montana and North Dakota ........................................ $9,380 plus interest ....................... $9,380 plus interest

Industry .................................................................................................... <$9,380 plus interest> ................... <$9,380 plus interest>

Federal Government ............................................................................... ¥0¥ .............................................. ¥0¥

2. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.

12866)

This document is not a significant

rule and is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

(1) This rule will not have an effect of

$100 million or more on the economy.

It will not adversely affect in a material

way the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities.

(2) This rule will not create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by

another agency.

(3) This rule will not alter the

budgetary effects or entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights

or obligations of their recipients.

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal

or policy issues.

3. The Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior

certifies that this rule will not have a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). See Small Business

Issues in Item 1.B. above.

Your comments are important. The

Small Business and Agricultural

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were

established to receive comments from

small businesses about Federal agency

enforcement actions. The Ombudsman

will annually evaluate the enforcement

activities and rate each agency’s

responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on the enforcement

actions in this rule, call 1–888–734–

3247.

4. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under 5

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

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule:

a. Will not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more.

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. Will 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.

5. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule will not impose an

unfunded mandate on State, local, or

tribal governments or the private sector

of more than $100 million per year. The

rule will 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.

6. Takings (E.O. 12630)

Under Executive Order 12630, this

proposed rule does not have significant

takings implications. This rule does not

impose conditions or limitations on the

use of any private property;

consequently, a takings implication

assessment is not required.

7. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

Under Executive Order 13132, this

proposed rule does not have Federalism

implications. This rule does not

substantially or directly affect the

relationship between Federal and State

governments or impose costs on States

or localities.

8. Civil Justice Reform (E. O. 12988)

Under Executive Order 12988, the

Office of the Solicitor has determined

that this proposed rule will not unduly

burden the judicial system and does

meet the requirements of sections 3(a)

and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

9. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This rule does not contain an

information collection, as defined by the

Paperwork Reduction Act, and the

submission of Office of Management

and Budget Form 83–I is not required.

10. National Environmental Policy Act

This rule does not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment. A

detailed statement under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not

required.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR 206

Coal, Continental shelf, Geothermal

energy, Government contracts,

Indians—lands, Mineral royalties,

Natural gas, Petroleum, Public lands—

mineral resources, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 10, 2000.

Sylvia V. Baca,

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals

Management.

For reasons stated in the preamble,

MMS amends part 206 as follows:

PART 206—PRODUCT VALUATION

1. The authority citation for part 206

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; 25 U.S.C.

396 et seq., 396a et seq., 2101 et seq.; 30

U.S.C. 181 et seq., 351 et seq., 1001 et seq.,

1701 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1301

et seq., 1331 et seq., 1801 et seq.

§ 206.174 [Amended]

2. In § 206.174, remove paragraph (l).

[FR Doc. 00–26932 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

32 CFR Part 706

Certifications and Exemptions Under

the International Regulations for

Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

is amending its certifications and

exemptions under the International

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at

Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that

the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate

General of the Navy (Admiralty and

Maritime Law) has determined that USS

Mitscher (DDG 57) is a vessel of the

Navy which, due to its special

construction and purpose, cannot fully

comply with certain provisions of the 72

COLREGS without interfering with its

special function as a naval ship. The

intended effect of this rule is to warn

mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS

apply.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 62615

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Commander Gregg A. Cervi,

JAGC, U.S. Navy Admiralty Counsel,

Office of the Judge Advocate General,

Navy Department, Washington Navy

Yard, Washington, DC 20374–5066;

Telephone number: (202) 685–5040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C.

1605, the Department of the Navy

amends 32 CFR part 706. This

amendment provides notice that the

Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate

General of the Navy (Admiralty and

Maritime Law), under authority

delegated by the Secretary of the Navy,

has certified that USS Mitscher (DDG

57) is a vessel of the Navy which, due

to its special construction and purpose,

cannot fully comply with the following

specific provisions of 72 COLREGS

without interfering with its special

function as a naval ship: Annex I

paragraph 3(a) pertaining to the location

of the forward masthead light in the

forward quarter of the vessel, and the

horizontal distance between the forward

and after masthead lights. The Deputy

Assistant Judge Advocate General of the

Navy (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has

also certified that the lights involved are

located in closest possible compliance

with the applicable 72 COLREGS

requirements.

Moreover, it has been determined, in

accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and

701, that publication of this amendment

for public comment prior to adoption is

impracticable, unnecessary, and

contrary to public interest since it is

based on technical findings that the

placement of lights on this vessel in a

manner differently from that prescribed

herein will adversely affect the vessel’s

ability to perform its military functions.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR part 706

Marine safety, Navigation (water), and

Vessels.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 706 is

amended as follows:

PART 706—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 32 CFR

part 706 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605.

2. Table Five of § 706.2 is amended by

revising the entry for USS Mitscher to

read as follows:

§ 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of

the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and

33 U.S.C. 1605.

* * * * *

TABLE FIVE

Vessel Number

Masthead lights

not over all other

lights and obstructions. annex

I, sec. 2(f)

Forward masthead light not in

forward quarter of

ship. annex I,

sec. 3(a)

After masthead

light less than 1⁄2

ship’s length aft

of forward masthead light. annex

I, sec. 3(a)

Percentage horizontal separation

attained

*******

USS Mitscher ......................................................... DDG 57 X X X 19.8

*******

Dated: November 9, 1999.

Approved:

G.A. Cervi,

Lieutenant Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy,

Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate, General

(Admiralty and Maritime Law).

Editorial Note: This document was

received at the Office of the Federal Register

October 6, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–26263 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

32 CFR Part 724

RIN 0703–AA64

Naval Discharge Review Board

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment reflects

administrative changes made to the

Department of the Navy’s Naval

Discharge Review Board regulations.

DATES: Effective October 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Judge

Advocate General (Code 13), 1322

Patterson Ave. SE, Suite 3000,

Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374–

5066.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Claussen, Legal Advisor, Naval

Council of Personnel Boards, 720

Kennon Street, SE, Room 309,

Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374–

5023. Phone: (202) 685–6399.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the authority cited below, the

Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR

part 724. This amendment provides

notice that the Department of the Navy

has made administrative changes to the

Naval Discharge Review Board

regulations. These changes are found in

subparts A and B and reflect updated

references, removal of a redundant

information, a change in the number of

days an applicant has to submit

documents to the Board after

notification that certain documents are

unavailable to the Board from 30 to 60

days, and other administrative changes.

It has been determined that invitation of

public comment on this amendment

would be impracticable and

unnecessary, and it is therefore not

required under the public rulemaking

provisions of 32 CFR Part 336 or

Secretary of the Navy Instruction

5720.45. Interested persons, however,

are invited to comment in writing on

this amendment. All written comments

received will be considered in making

subsequent amendments or revisions of

32 CFR Part 724, or the instructions on

which they are based. Changes may be

initiated on the basis of comments

received. Written comments should be

addressed to Roger Claussen, Legal

Advisor, Naval Council of Personnel

Boards, 720 Kennon Street, SE, Room

309, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374–

5023. Phone: (202) 685–6399. It has

been determined that this final rule is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as

defined in Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

It has been determined that this rule

does not have sufficient Federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment. The