Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12709

impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs; or (4) raising novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in this Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of this

Executive Order, EPA has determined

that this rule is not ‘‘significant’’ and is

therefore not subject to OMB review.

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601–612),

the Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new tolerances

or raising tolerance levels or

establishing exemptions from tolerance

requirements do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A certification

statement to this effect was published in

the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: February 22, 1995.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. In § 180.446, by removing

paragraph (a) and designating it as

‘‘reserved’’ and by amending paragraph

(b) by revising the table therein, to read

as follows:

§ 180.446 Clofentezine; tolerances for

residues.

(a) [Reserved]

(b) * * *

Commodity Parts per

million

Almonds, hulls .......................... 5.0

Almonds, nutmeat ..................... 0.5

Apples ....................................... 0.01

Apricots ..................................... 1.0

Cherries .................................... 1.0

Nectarines ................................. 1.0

Peaches .................................... 1.0

Pears ......................................... 0.5

Walnuts ..................................... 0.02

* * * *

*

[FR Doc. 95–5651 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 281

[FRL–5168–1]

Utah; Final Approval of State

Underground Storage Tank Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final determination on

State of Utah application for final

approval.

SUMMARY: The State of Utah has applied

for final approval of its underground

storage tank program under Subtitle I of

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA). The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has reviewed the Utah application and

has reached a final determination that

Utah’s underground storage tank (UST)

program satisfies all of the requirements

necessary to qualify for final approval.

Thus, EPA is granting final approval to

the State to operate its program in lieu

of the Federal program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Final approval for Utah

shall be effective at 1:00 pm Eastern

Time on April 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie Zawacki, Underground Storage

Tank Program Section, U.S. EPA, Region

8, 8HWM–WM, 999 18th Street, Denver,

Colorado 80202, phone: (303) 293–1665.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 9004 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

enables EPA to approve state

underground storage tank programs to

operate in the State in lieu of the

Federal underground storage tank (UST)

program. Program approval is granted

by EPA if the Agency finds that the

State program: (1) is ‘‘no less stringent’’

than the Federal program in all seven

elements, and includes notification

requirements of section 9004(a)(8), 42

U.S.C. 6991c(a)(8); and (2) provides for

adequate enforcement of compliance

with UST standards (section 9004(a), 42

U.S.C. 6991c(a)).

On September 20, 1993, Utah

submitted an application for ‘‘complete’’

program approval which includes

regulation of both petroleum and

hazardous substance tanks. The State of

Utah established authority through the

Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act to

implement an underground storage tank

program in February 1986, and further

developed its authority in the UST Act

in February 1989. The State adopted the

federal rules and developed some

additional rules in February 1989.

On October 27, 1994, EPA published

a tentative decision announcing its

intent to grant Utah final approval.

Further background on the tentative

decision to grant approval appears at 59

FR 53955, October 27, 1994. Along with

the tentative determination, EPA

announced the availability of the

application for public comment and

provided notice that a public hearing

would be provided if significant public

interest was shown. EPA received no

comments on the application and no

request for a public hearing, therefore, a

hearing was not held.

B. Decision

I conclude that Utah’s application for

final approval meets all of the statutory

and regulatory requirements established

by Subtitle I of RCRA. Accordingly,

Utah is granted final approval to operate

its underground storage tank program in

lieu of the Federal program. Utah now

has the responsibility for managing

underground storage tank facilities

within its borders and carrying out all

aspects of the UST program except with

regard to ‘‘Indian Country,’’ as defined

in 18 U.S.C. 1151, where EPA will

retain and otherwise exercise regulatory

authority. Utah also has primary

enforcement responsibility, although

EPA retains the right to conduct

inspections under section 9005 of RCRA

42 U.S.C. 6991d and to take

enforcement actions under section 9006

of RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6991e.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this

approval will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The approval

effectively suspends the applicability of

certain Federal regulations in favor of

Utah’s program, thereby eliminating

duplicative requirements for owners

and operators of underground storage

tanks in the State. It does not impose

any new burdens on small entities. This

rule, therefore, does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis.
12710 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Hazardous materials, State program

approval, Underground storage tanks.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of sections 2002(a), 7004(b), and

9004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as

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

6991(c).

Dated: March 1, 1995.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5657 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 2720

RIN 1004–AB86

[WO–690–02–4120–24 1A; Circular No.

2658]

Conveyance of Federally-Owned

Mineral Interests

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends 43

CFR part 2720 in order to streamline

and clarify the procedures for conveying

Federally-owned mineral interests to the

owner of the surface estate overlying the

mineral interests. Section 209 of the

Federal Land Policy and Management

Act (FLPMA) allows such conveyances

when there are no known mineral

values present, or when the reservation

of the mineral rights is interfering with

or precluding appropriate nonmineral

development of the land that would be

more beneficial than mineral

development. The rule is necessary

because the wording of the existing

regulation has caused considerable

confusion on the part of both the public

and public land managers, and has been

interpreted to require expensive mineral

surveys in many cases where such

surveys were unnecessary. The final

rule will simplify the conveyance of

Federally-owned mineral interests.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Suggestions or inquiries

should be sent to: Director (690), Bureau

of Land Management, 1849 C Street

NW., Washington, D.C. 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clyde Topping, (202) 452–0380.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Five

sections of subpart 2720 are amended in

this final rule. The amendments in two

of these sections are substantive and are

designed to meet the objectives stated

above in the Summary, and are

explained below in the discussion of the

comments received on the rule. The

remaining three sections—sections

2720.0–6, 2720.1–3, and 2720.3—

contain minor clarifications and

corrections in language that were

explained in the preamble to the

proposed rule published in the Federal

Register on September 28, 1993 (58 FR

50536). The rule allowed 60 days for

public comment. During this public

comment period, 1 public comment was

received.

The comment basically supported the

rule. It also asked for a reaffirmation of

BLM’s policy regarding exchanges

involving surface and mineral rights,

which allows both parties to an

exchange to reserve mineral rights or to

convey other mineral rights in order to

keep the exchange balanced. This final

rule has no effect on this BLM policy.

The statute that is implemented in

these regulations allows conveyance of

the mineral rights when the Secretary of

the Interior finds that there are no

known mineral values or that the

mineral reservation is interfering with

or precluding appropriate nonmineral

development that is more beneficial

than mineral development. It requires

payment of administrative costs and the

current fair market value of the minerals

conveyed. It does not require the

retention of non-valuable minerals in

Federal ownership where there is a

beneficial use of the surface with which

mineral development would interfere. If

the Secretary finds that mineral

development in a particular case may be

more beneficial than the surface use

planned by the non-Federal owner, the

conveyance would not be allowed.

The definition of ‘‘known mineral

value’’ has been amended in the final

rule to make it clear that mineral values

will be determined in light of the

current market, and to refer to lands

containing mineral formations rather

than to lands with underlying

formations.

Minor changes in style have been

made in the regulatory text to improve

clarity and readability.

The principal author of this final rule

is Clyde Topping of the Biotic and

Landscape Resource Team, assisted by

the Regulatory Management Team,

BLM.

It is hereby determined that this final

rule does not constitute a major Federal

action significantly affecting the quality

of the human environment, and that no

detailed statement pursuant to Section

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)) is required. The BLM has

determined that this final rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental review. Under the

Council on Environmental Quality

regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and

environmental policies and procedures

of the Department of the Interior,

‘‘categorical exclusions’’ means a

category of actions that do not

individually or cumulatively have a

significant effect on the human

environment and which 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. The BLM

has made this determination under 516

Departmental Manual (DM), Chapter 2,

Appendix 1, Item 1.10, which includes

‘‘regulations * * * the environmental

effects of which are too broad,

speculative or conjectural to lend

themselves to meaningful analysis and

will be subject later to the NEPA

process, either collectively or case-bycase,’’ because the environmental effects

of the transactions covered by this rule

(a great variety of possible proposed

uses of non-Federal surface) are entirely

speculative and conjectural, and the

transactions covered by the regulations

will be subject to the NEPA process on

a case-by-case basis as they are

proposed. The BLM further determined

that the rule will not trigger any of the

10 exceptions disallowing categorical

exclusions listed in 516 DM 2,

Appendix 2. These 10 exceptions apply

to individual actions, not broad

regulations covering a multitude of

possible individual actions.

This rule was not subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget

under Executive Order 12866.

The Department has determined

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the final rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. The rule, by clarifying

provisions that have been

misinterpreted in the past, obviates

unneeded and expensive mineral

exploration programs to prove the

market value of reserved mineral rights

that are not valuable in the market

sense. The rule imposes no costs, and

makes the regulatory process less

cumbersome.

The Department certifies that this

final rule does not represent a

governmental action capable of

interference with constitutionally

protected property rights. The rule does

not require the taking of any property

rights. Therefore, as required by

Executive Order 12630, the Department