62266 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

approval of Alabama’s hazardous waste

program referenced in today’s document

will result in annual costs of $100

million or more. EPA’s approval of state

programs generally may reduce, not

increase, compliance costs for the

private sector since the State, by virtue

of the approval, may now administer the

program in lieu of EPA and exercise

primary enforcement. Hence, owners

and operators of treatment, storage, or

disposal facilities (TSDFs) generally no

longer face dual Federal and State

compliance requirements, thereby

reducing overall compliance costs.

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

EPA has determined that this rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. The Agency

recognizes that small governments may

own and/or operate TSDFs that will

become subject to the requirements of

an approved State Hazardous Waste

Program. However, such small

governments which own and/or operate

TSDFs are already subject to the

requirements in 40 CFR parts 264, 265,

and 270 and are not subject to any

additional significant or unique

requirements by virtue of this program

approval. Once EPA authorizes a State

to administer its own hazardous waste

program and any revisions to the

program, these same small governments

will be able to own and operate their

TSDFs under the approved State

program, in lieu of the Federal program.

IV. Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

EPA has determined that this

authorization will not have significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Such small

entities which are hazardous waste

generators, transporters, or which own

and/or operate TSDFs are already

subject to the State requirements

authorized by EPA under 40 CFR part

271. EPA’s authorization does not

impose any additional burdens on these

small entities. This is because EPA’s

authorization would simply result in an

administrative change, rather than a

change in the substantive requirements

imposed on small entities.

Therefore, EPA provides the following

certification under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, as amended by the small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act. Pursuant to the provision

at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that

this authorization will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This authorization approves regulatory

requirements under existing State law to

which small entities are already subject.

It does not impose any new burdens on

small entities. This, rule, therefore, does

not require a regulatory flexibility

analysis.

V. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801 (a) (1) (A) as

added by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous waste transportation,

Hazardous waste, Indian lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

Authority: This document is issued under

the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as

amended (42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b)).

Phyllis P. Hall,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–30656 Filed 11–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 2760

RIN 1004–AC91

Reclamation Projects, Grant of Lands

in Reclamation Townsites for School

Purposes

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule removes the

regulations on sales and grants of land

in reclamation townsites for reclamation

projects and school purposes. The

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is

removing these regulations because they

consist of outdated material and

restatements of statutory language.

Consequently, the regulations are

unnecessary and can be removed

without any significant effect.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: You may send inquiries or

suggestions to: Director (630), Bureau of

Land Management, 1849 C Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff

Holdren, Bureau of Land Management,

Lands and Realty Group, (202) 452–

7779.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Final Rule as Adopted

III. Responses to Comments

IV. Procedural Matters

I. Background

The existing regulations at 43 CFR

part 2760 were written for BLM to assist

the Bureau of Reclamation in disposing

of lands through public sale or grants to

townsites for school purposes. BLM is

removing these regulations because they

are rarely used and contain no

applicable, substantive provisions

beyond what is already in the statutes.

The final rule published today is a

stage of a rulemaking process that will

conclude in the removal of the

regulations in 43 CFR part 2760. This

rule finalizes a proposed rule that was

published on October 3, 1996, in the

Federal Register at 61 FR 51666. The

rule provided for a comment period of

60 days, and BLM received no

comments from the public.

II. Final Rule as Adopted

This rule will remove the regulations

at 43 CFR part 2760 in their entirety.

Subpart 2764 consists entirely of

unnecessary material. Sections 2764.1

and 2764.3 concern procedures the

Commissioner of Reclamation must

follow when appraising and selling the

lots at issue. These provisions are

derived from 43 U.S.C. 561–573, and

merely inform the public of the role

assumed by the Bureau of Reclamation

in this program. The regulations are

redundant because they repeat language

in 43 U.S.C. 564, and for this reason,

these two sections have no substantive

effect. The remaining sections of subpart

2764 are direct restatements of statutory

language: section 2764.2 repeats 43

U.S.C. 564–565, and section 2764.4

largely repeats 43 U.S.C. 566. Finally,

the last sentence of section 2764.4, the

part which does not merely repeat the

statute, is outdated because it directs

municipal corporations to comply with

a CFR section that no longer exists.

Subpart 2765 consists of the filing

procedures school districts must follow

when applying for a land grant for

school purposes. These regulations

elaborate on the statutory provisions at

43 U.S.C. 570 authorizing the Secretary

of the Interior to grant school districts
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 62267

up to six acres from a reclamation

townsite. BLM is removing these

regulations to give itself and the Bureau

of Reclamation added flexibility in

processing the rare application for a

school grant. Rather than requiring the

school district to submit the lengthy

requirements currently contained in

section 2765.1, BLM will only ask that

an application be submitted which

complies with any Bureau of

Reclamation requirements and is

otherwise adequate to inform BLM of its

request. The substantive provisions

currently contained in subpart 2765,

such as the 6-acre limit and the

reversion held by the United States in

the event the land is used for purposes

other than a school, are entirely

contained in the statute at § 570.

III. Responses to Comments

BLM received no comments from the

public, and is therefore adopting the

proposed rule without changes.

IV. Procedural Matters

National Environmental Policy Act

BLM has determined that because this

final rule only eliminates provisions

that have no impact on the public and

no continued legal relevance, it is

categorically excluded from

environmental review under section

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental

Policy Act, pursuant to 516

Departmental Manual (DM), Chapter 2,

Appendix 1, Item 1.10. In addition, this

action does not meet any of the 10

criteria for exceptions to categorical

exclusions listed in 516 DM, Chapter 2,

Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on

Environmental Quality regulations (40

CFR 1508.4) and the environmental

policies and procedures of the

Department of the Interior, the term

‘‘categorical exclusions’’ means a

category of actions which do not

individually or cumulatively have a

significant effect on the human

environment and that have been found

to have no such effect in procedures

adopted by a Federal agency and for

which neither an environmental

assessment nor an environmental

impact statement is required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

the Office of Management and Budget

must approve under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Congress enacted the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C.

601 et seq., to ensure that Government

regulations do not unnecessarily or

disproportionately burden small

entities. The RFA requires a regulatory

flexibility analysis if a rule would have

a significant economic impact, either

detrimental or beneficial, on a

substantial number of small entities.

BLM has determined under the RFA

that this final rule would not have a

significant economic impact on

substantial number of small entities. As

discussed above, the rule merely

removes unnecessary regulations and

causes no change in status or rights of

any entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Removal of 43 CFR part 2760 will not

result in any unfunded mandate to state,

local or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Executive Order 12612

The final rule will not 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. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

BLM has determined that this final rule

does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12630

The final rule does not represent a

government action capable of interfering

with constitutionally protected property

rights. Section 2(a)(1) of Executive

Order 12630 specifically exempts

actions abolishing regulations or

modifying regulations in a way that

lessens interference with private

property use from the definition of

‘‘policies that have takings

implications.’’ Since the primary

function of the final rule is to abolish

unnecessary regulations, there will be

no private property rights impaired as a

result. Therefore, BLM has determined

that the rule would not cause a taking

of private property, or require further

discussion of takings implications under

this Executive Order.

Executive Order 12866

According to the criteria listed in

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,

BLM has determined that the final rule

is not a significant regulatory action. As

such, the final rule is not subject to

Office of Management and Budget

review under section 6(a)(3) of the

order.

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule meets the

applicable standards provided in

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988.

Author: The principal author of this

rule is Erica Petacchi, Regulatory

Management Group, Bureau of Land

Management, 401LS, 1849 C Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202)

452–5084.

List of Subjects for 43 CFR Part 2760

Public lands—sale, Reclamation,

Schools.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, and under the authority of 43

U.S.C. 1740, part 2760 of Group 2700,

Subchapter C, Chapter II of Title 43 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

removed.

Dated: November 4, 1997.

Sylvia V. Baca,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and

Minerals Management.

[FR Doc. 97–30664 Filed 11–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA–7677]

List of Communities Eligible for the

Sale of Flood Insurance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule identifies

communities participating in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP). These communities have

applied to the program and have agreed

to enact certain floodplain management

measures. The communities’

participation in the program authorizes

the sale of flood insurance to owners of

property located in the communities

listed.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The dates listed in the

third column of the table.

ADDRESSES: Flood insurance policies for

property located in the communities

listed can be obtained from any licensed

property insurance agent or broker

serving the eligible community, or from

the NFIP at: Post Office Box 6464,

Rockville, MD 20849, (800) 638–6620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. Shea, Jr., Division Director,

Program Implementation Division,

Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street SW.,