### 75098 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules

include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of today ’ s amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administrations ’ regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3)a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in the field.

After considering the economic impacts of today ’ s proposed rule amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action does not create any new regulatory requirements. Rather, they continue to apply existing requirements by delaying the compliance date for new or more stringent requirements. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 12, 2005. Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator. [FR Doc. 05

– 24199 Filed 12

– 16

– 05; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560**

**– 50** 

**– P** 

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 272**

**[EPA**

**– R10** 

**– RCRA** 

**– 2005** 

**– 0465, FRL** 

**– 8009** 

**– 9]** 

**Idaho: Incorporation by Reference of Approved State Hazardous Waste**  **Management Program**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901 to 6992k (RCRA), allows EPA to authorize State hazardous waste management programs if EPA finds that such programs are equivalent to and consistent with the Federal program and provide adequate enforcement of compliance. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 272 is used by EPA to codify its decision to authorize individual State programs and incorporates by reference those provisions of the State statutes and regulations that are subject to EPA ’ s inspection and enforcement authorities as authorized provisions of the State ’ s program. This rule proposes to revise the codification of the Idaho authorized program at 40 CFR part 272, subpart N.

**DATES :**  Comments on this proposed action must be received by the close of business January 18, 2006. If EPA receives significant comments on this proposed action, EPA will respond to such comments in the Federal Register at the time EPA publishes a final rule.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA

–R10

– RCRA

– 2005

– 0465 by one of the following methods:

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

• E-mail: hunt.jeff@epa.gov.

• Mail: Jeff Hunt, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop AWT

– 122, Seattle, WA 98101.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA

–R10

–RCRA

– 2005

– 0465 EPA ’ s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘ anonymous access ’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD

–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA ’ s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The library telephone number is 206

– 553

– 1289.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Jeff Hunt, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail stop WCM

– 122, Seattle, WA 98101, e-mail: hunt.jeff@epa.gov, phone number (206) 553

– 0256.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Incorporation By Reference A. What Is Codification?

Codification is the process of including the statutes and regulations that comprise the State ’ s authorized hazardous waste management program in the CFR. Section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), allows the Environmental Protection Agency to authorize State hazardous waste management programs. The State regulations authorized by EPA supplant the federal regulations concerning the same matter with the result that after authorization EPA enforces the authorized regulations. Infrequently, State statutory language which acts to regulate a matter is also authorized by EPA with the consequence that EPA enforces the authorized statutory provision. EPA does not authorize State enforcement authorities and does not authorize State procedural requirements. EPA codifies the authorized State program in 40 CFR part 272 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that make up the approved program which is Federally enforceable. EPA retains independent enforcement authority pursuant to sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934 and 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

Today ’ s action proposes to codify EPA ’ s authorization of revisions to Idaho ’ s hazardous waste management program. This proposed codification


### 75099 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules

reflects the State program in effect at the time EPA authorized revisions to the Idaho hazardous waste management program in a final rule dated July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273). Notice and an opportunity for comment regarding the revisions to the authorized State program were provided to the public at the time those revisions were proposed. EPA is not reopening its decisions to authorize changes to the State ’ s program nor is EPA requesting comment on those revisions. B. What Is the History of the Authorization and Codification of Idaho ’s Hazardous Waste Management Program?

Idaho initially received final authorization for its hazardous waste management program, effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015). Subsequently, EPA authorized revisions to the State ’ s program effective June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580), August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757), June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549), January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086), July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44069), March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322), and July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273). EPA first codified Idaho ’ s authorized hazardous waste program effective February 4, 1991 (55 FR 50327), and updated the codification of Idaho ’ s program on June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580), August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757), August 24, 1999 (64 FR 34133), and March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11132). In this action, EPA is proposing to revise subpart N of 40 CFR part 272, to include the most recent authorization revision effective July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273). C. What Decisions Have We Proposed in This Action?

Today ’ s action proposes to codify EPA ’ s authorization of revisions to Idaho ’ s hazardous waste management program. The proposed codification will incorporate by reference the most recent version of the State ’ s authorized hazardous waste management regulations. This proposed action does not reopen any decision EPA previously made concerning the authorization of the State ’ s hazardous waste management program. EPA is not requesting comments on its decisions published in the Federal Register as referenced in Section B of this document concerning revisions to the authorized program in Idaho.

EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the authorized revisions to the Idaho hazardous waste program by revising subpart N of 40 CFR part 272. 40 CFR 272.651 currently incorporates by reference Idaho ’ s authorized hazardous waste program, as amended, through 2004. Section 272.651 also references the demonstration of adequate enforcement authority, including procedural and enforcement provisions, which provide the legal basis for the State ’ s implementation of the hazardous waste management program. In addition, § 272.651 references the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General ’ s Statement and the Program Description which were evaluated as part of the approval process of the hazardous waste management program in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA. This action proposes to update those demonstrations of adequate enforcement authority, including procedural and enforcement provisions, which provide the legal basis for the State ’ s implementation of the hazardous waste management program, as well as the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General ’ s Statement and the Program Description, all of which were evaluated as part of the approval process for the program revision effective on July 22, 2005.
D. What Is the Effect of Idaho ’s Codification on Enforcement?

EPA retains its independent enforcement authority under statutory provisions, including but not limited to, sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003 of RCRA, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in all authorized States. With respect to enforcement actions, EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than the State analogues to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing to incorporate by reference Idaho ’ s inspection and enforcement authorities nor are those authorities part of Idaho ’ s approved State program which operates in lieu of the Federal program. 40 CFR 272.651(b)(2) lists these authorities for informational purposes, and also because EPA considered them in determining the adequacy of Idaho ’ s enforcement authorities. This action proposes to revise this listing for informational purposes where these authorities have changed under Idaho ’ s revisions to State law and were considered by EPA in determining the adequacy of Idaho ’ s enforcement authorities. Idaho ’ s authority to inspect and enforce the State ’ s hazardous waste management program requirements continues to operate independently under State law. E. What State Provisions Are Not Proposed as Part of the Codification?

The public is reminded that some provisions of Idaho ’ s hazardous waste management program are not part of the federally authorized State program. These non-authorized provisions include:

(1) Provisions that are not part of the RCRA subtitle C program because they

are ‘‘ broader in scope ’’ than RCRA subtitle C (see 40 CFR 271.1(i));

(2) Federal rules for which Idaho is not authorized, but which have been incorporated into the State regulations because of the way the State adopted federal regulations by reference;

(3) State procedural and enforcement authorities which are necessary to establish the ability of the program to enforce compliance but which do not supplant the Federal statutory enforcement and procedural authorities.

State provisions that are ‘‘ broader in
scope ’’ than the federal program are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For reference and clarity, 40 CFR 272.651(b)(3) currently lists the Idaho regulatory provisions which are

‘‘ broader in scope ’’ than the federal program and which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by reference. This action proposes to update that list for ‘‘ broader in scope ’’ provisions EPA identified in recent authorization actions for revisions to the State program. While ‘‘ broader in
scope ’’ provisions are not part of the authorized program and cannot be enforced by EPA, the State may enforce such provisions under State law. F. What Will be the Effect of the Proposed Codification on Federal HSWA Requirements?

With respect to any requirement(s) pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) for which the State has not yet been authorized and which EPA has identified as taking effect immediately in States with authorized hazardous waste management programs, EPA will enforce those Federal HSWA standards until the State is authorized for those provisions.

The proposed Codification does not effect Federal HSWA requirements for which the State is not authorized. EPA has authority to implement HSWA requirements in all States, including States with authorized hazardous waste management programs, until the States become authorized for such requirements or prohibitions unless EPA has identified the HSWA requirement(s) as an optional or as a less stringent requirement of the Federal


### 75100 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules

program. A HSWA requirement or prohibition, unless identified by EPA as optional or as less stringent, supersedes any less stringent or inconsistent State provision which may have been previously authorized by EPA (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985).

Some existing State requirements may be similar to the HSWA requirements implemented by EPA. However, until EPA authorizes those State requirements, EPA enforces the HSWA requirements and not the State analogs. II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This action proposes to codify EPAauthorized hazardous waste management requirements pursuant to RCRA section 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law (see **SUPPLEMENTARY**
**INFORMATION** ). Therefore, EPA has assessed this proposed action for compliance with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

1. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ‘‘ significant, ’’ and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ‘‘ significant regulatory action ’’ as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President ’ s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. EPA has tentatively determined that this proposed rule is not a

‘‘ significant regulatory action ’’ under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. 2. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. , is intended to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping burden on the regulated community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that information requests and recordkeeping requirements affecting ten or more non-Federal respondents be approved by OPM. Since this proposed rule does not establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community, EPA has tentatively determined that it is not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

, generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today ’ s proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as codified in the Small Business Size Regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. EPA has tentatively determined that this proposed action will not have a significant impact on small entities because the proposed action will onlyhave the effect of authorizing preexisting requirements under State law. After considering the economic impacts of today ’ s proposed action, I propose to certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. Law
104

–4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ‘‘ Federal mandates ’’ that may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives andadopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why the alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, EPA has tentatively determined that the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this proposed rule.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘ Federalism ’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure

‘‘ meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ’’ ‘‘ Policies that have federalism implications ’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘ substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. ’’ This proposed rule does not have federalism


### 75101 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules

implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule addresses the codification of the authorized State hazardous waste program in Idaho. Thus, EPA has tentatively determined that Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘ Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ’’ (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘ meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. ’’ This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, EPA has tentatively determined that Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be

‘‘ economically significant ’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA has tentatively determined that this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

EPA has tentatively determined that this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘ Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a ‘‘ significant regulatory action ’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866. 9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( ‘‘ NTTAA ’’ ), Public Law
104

– 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA has tentatively determined that this proposed rule does not involve

‘‘ technical standards ’’ as defined by the NTTAA and is therefore not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands. Because this proposed rule addresses codifying a revision of the authorized hazardous waste program in the State of Idaho and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, EPA has tentatively determined that the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 272

Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Water pollution control, Water supply. Authority: This proposed action 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).

Dated: December 7, 2005. Ronald A. Kreizenbeck, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region
10.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 272 as follows:

**PART 272**

**— APPROVED STATE**  **HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS** 

1. The authority citation for part 272 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

2. Subpart N is amended by revising § 272.651 to read as follows:

**§ 272.651 Idaho State-Administered**  **Program: Final Authorization.**

(a) Pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), Idaho has final authorization for the following elements as submitted to EPA in Idaho ’ s base program application for final authorization which was approved by EPA effective on April 9, 1990. Subsequent program revision applications were approved effective on June 5, 1992, August 10, 1992, June 11, 1995, January 19, 1999, July 1, 2002, March 10, 2004, and July 22, 2005.

(b) The State of Idaho has primary responsibility for enforcing its hazardous waste management program. However, EPA retains the authority to exercise its inspection and enforcement authorities in accordance with sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934, 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions, as well as in accordance with other statutory and regulatory provisions.

(c) State Statutes and Regulations. (1) The Idaho statutes and regulations cited in this paragraph are incorporated by reference as part of the hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

(i) The EPA-Approved Idaho Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program, July 2005.

(ii) [Reserved] (2) EPA considered the following statutes and regulations in evaluating the State program but is not incorporating them herein for enforcement purposes:


### 75102 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules

(i) Idaho Code (I.C.) containing the General Laws of Idaho Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 44, ‘‘ Hazardous Waste Management ’’ , published in 2002 by the Michie Company, Law Publishers: sections 39

–4404; 39

–4405 (except 39

– 4405(8)); 39

–4406; 39

–4407; 39

–4408(4);
39

–4409(2) (except first sentence); 39

– 4409(3); 39

– 4409(4) (first sentence); 39

– 4410; 39

–4411(1); 39

–4411(3); 39

– 4411(6); 39

– 4412 through 39

–4416; 39

– 4418; 39

– 4419; 39

–4421; 39

–4422; and
39

– 4423(3) (a)&(b).

(ii) Idaho Code (I.C.) containing the General Laws of Idaho Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 58, ‘‘ Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Act ’’ , published in 2002 by the Michie Company, Law Publishers: sections 39

– 5804; 39

– 5809;
39

– 5810; 39

– 5813(2); 39

– 5814; 39

– 5816; 39

– 5817; and 39

– 5818(1).

(iii) Idaho Code (I.C.) containing the General Laws of Idaho Annotated, Volume 2, Title 9, Chapter 3, ‘‘ Public Writings ’’ , published in 1990 by the Michie Company, Law Publishers, Charlottesville, Virginia: sections 9

– 337(10); 9

– 337(11); 9

– 338; 9

– 339; and
9

– 344(2).

(iv) 2002 Cumulative Pocket Supplement to the Idaho Code (I.C.), Volume 2, Title 9, Chapter 3, ‘‘ Public Writing ’’ , published in 2002 by the Michie Company, Law Publishers, Charlottesville, Virginia: sections 9

– 340A, 9

– 340B, and 9

– 343.

(v) Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Rules and Regulations, Idaho Administrative Code, IDAPA 58, Title 1, Chapter 5, ‘‘ Rules and Standards for Hazardous Waste ’’ , as published July 2004: sections 58.01.05.000; 58.01.05.356.02 through 58.01.05.356.05; 58.01.05.800; 58.01.05.850; 58.01.05.996; 58.01.05.997; and 58.01.05.999.

(3) The following statutory and regulatory provisions are broader in scope than the Federal program, are not part of the authorized program, are not incorporated by reference, and are not federally enforceable:

(i) Idaho Code containing the General Laws of Idaho Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 44, ‘‘ Hazardous Waste Management ’’ , published in 2002 by the Michie Company, Law Publishers: sections 39

–4403(6) & (14); 39

–4427;
39

–4428 and 39

–4429.

(ii) Idaho Code containing the General Laws of Idaho Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 58, ‘‘ Hazardous Waste Siting Act ’’ , published in 2002 by the Michie Company, Law Publishers: section 39

– 5813(3).

(iii) Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Rules and Regulations, Idaho Administrative Code, IDAPA 58, Title 1, Chapter 5, ‘‘ Rules and Standards for Hazardous Waste ’’ , as published July 2004: sections 58.01.05.355; and 58.01.05.500.

(4) Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region 10 and the State of Idaho (IDEQ), signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on August 1, 2001, although not incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921, et seq.

(5) Statement of Legal Authority. The

‘‘ Attorney General ’ s Statement for Final Authorization, ’’ signed by the Attorney General of Idaho on July 5, 1988 and revisions, supplements and addenda to that Statement, dated July 3, 1989, February 13, 1992, December 29, 1994, September 16, 1996, October 3, 1997, April 6, 2001, September 11, 2002, and September 22, 2004, although not incorporated by reference, are referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921, et seq.

(6) Program Description. The Program Description, and any other materials submitted as part of the original application or as supplements thereto, although not incorporated by reference, are referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921 et seq.

3. Appendix A to part 272, State Requirements, is amended by revising the listing for ‘‘ Idaho ’’ to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 272

— State Requirements

* * * * *

Idaho

(a) The statutory provisions include: Idaho Code containing the General Laws of Idaho Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 44,

‘‘ Hazardous Waste Management ’’ , 2002: sections 39

–4402; 39

–4403 (except 39

– 4403(6) & (14)); 39

–4408(1)

– (3); 39

– 4409(1) (except fourth and fifth sentences); 39

– 4409(2) (first sentence); 39

–4409(4) (except first sentence); 39

–4409(5); 39

–4409(6); 39

– 4409(7); 39

– 4409(8); 39

–4411(2); 39

–4411(4);
39

–4411(5); 39

–4423 (except 39

–4423(3)(a) & (b)); and 39

–4424.

Idaho Code containing the General Laws of Idaho Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 58,

‘‘ Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Act ’’

, published in 2002 by the Michie Company, Law Publishers: sections 39

– 5802; 39

– 5803;
39

– 5808; 39

– 5811; 39

– 5813(1); and 39

– 5818(2).

Copies of the Idaho statutes that are incorporated by reference are available from Michie Company, Law Publishers, 1 Town Hall Square, Charlottesville, VA 22906

– 7587.

(b) The regulatory provisions include: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Rules and Regulations, Idaho Administrative Code, IDAPA 58, Title 1, Chapter 5, ‘‘ Rules and Standards for Hazardous Waste ’’ , as published on July 2004: sections 58.01.05.001; 58.01.05.002; 58.01.05.003; 58.01.05.004; 58.01.05.005; 58.01.05.006; 58.01.05.007; 58.01.05.008; 58.01.05.009; 58.01.05.010; 58.01.05.011; 58.01.05.012; 58.01.05.013; 58.01.05.014; 58.01.05.015; 58.01.05.016; 58.01.05.356.01; and 58.01.05.998.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05

– 24202 Filed 12

– 16

– 05; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560**

**– 50** 

**– P** 

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION** 

**47 CFR Part 64**

**[CG Docket No. 02**

**– 278; CG Docket No. 05** 

**– 338; FCC 05** 

**– 206]** 

**Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection**  **Act of 1991**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Communications Commission.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 amends section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 relating to unsolicited facsimile advertisements. The Junk Fax Prevention Act requires the Commission to issue regulations to implement the amendments made by the statute no later than 270 days after the date of enactment of the Act. In this document, the Commission proposes amendments to its unsolicited facsimile advertising rules and seeks comment on related aspects of those rules. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the established business relationship (EBR) exception to therules, the requirement to include an optout notice and contact information on facsimile advertisements, and other rules implementing the Junk Fax Prevention Act. The Commission also opens a new docket for all filings in response to this document and those addressing the facsimile advertising rules generally.

**DATES :**  Comments due January 18, 2006. Reply comments due February 2, 2006. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the general public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before February 17, 2006.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 05

– 338, by any of the following methods: