Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 205 / Monday, October 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 63225

speak and persons present in the

audience who wish to speak have been

heard.

Public Meeting

If only one person requests an

opportunity to testify at a hearing, a

public meeting, rather than a public

hearing, may be held. Persons wishing

to meet the OSM representatives to

discuss the proposed amendment may

request a meeting by contacting the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings

will be open to the public and, if

possible, notices of meetings will be

posted at the locations listed under

ADDRESSES. A written summary of each

meeting will be made a part of the

administrative record.

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of the Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that 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 such 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

the Federal regulations at 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

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332 (2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB 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

that 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.

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.

Executive Order 12630—Takings

This rule does not have takings

implications. This determination is

based on the analysis performed for the

counterpart federal regulation.

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

pursuant to SMCRA.

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.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 931

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: October 11, 2000.

Peter A. Rutledge,

Acting Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 00–27163 Filed 10–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018–AH67

Migratory Bird Hunting; Temporary

Approval of Tin Shot as Nontoxic for

Hunting Waterfowl and Coots During

the 2000–2001 Season

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service or we) published in the

September 25, 2000, Federal Register, a

proposal to grant temporary approval of

tin shot as nontoxic for hunting

waterfowl and coots during the 2000–01

hunting season. Inadvertently, the

deadline for public comment was stated

as November 24, 2000. This correction

amends the deadline for public

comment to October 24, 2000.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

published September 25, 2000 (65 FR

57586) must be received no later than

October 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You should submit

comments on the proposed rule to the

Chief, Office of Migratory Bird

63226 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 205 / Monday, October 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Management (MBMO), U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW., ms

634–ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240.

You may inspect comments during

normal business hours in Room 634,

Arlington Square Building, 4401 N.

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon

Andrew, Chief, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, (703) 358–1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We

published in the September 25, 2000,

Federal Register (65 FR 57586), a

proposal under the authority of the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.

703–712 and 16 U.S.C. 742a–j) to grant

temporary approval of tin shot as

nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and

coots during the 2000–01 hunting

season. Inadvertently, the deadline for

public comment was stated as

November 24, 2000, which provides for

a 60-day comment period. The correct

deadline for public comment is October

24, 2000. In the proposed rule, we stated

that the comment period for the

proposed rule had been shortened to 30

days. This timeframe will make it

possible for tin shot, if temporarily

approved, to be available for use by

hunters during the 2000–01 hunting

season, and will increase the number of

nontoxic shot options available to

hunters.

Dated: October 13, 2000.

Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 00–27108 Filed 10–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P