Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 20341 

should contact legal counsel for the 

member of the news media. Staff should 

contact a member of the news media 

directly only if the member is not 

represented by legal counsel. The 

purpose of this contact is to explore 

whether the member may have 

information essential to the 

investigation, and to determine the 

interests of the media with respect to 

the information. If the nature of the 

investigation permits, the staff should 

make clear what its needs are as well as 

its willingness to respond to particular 

problems of the media. The staff should 

consult with the Commission’s Office of 

Public Affairs, as appropriate. 

(d) The staff should negotiate with 

news media members or their counsel, 

consistently with this Policy Statement, 

to obtain the essential information 

through informal channels, avoiding the 

issuance of a subpoena, if the 

responsible Regional Director, District 

Administrator, or Associate Director 

determines that such negotiations 

would not substantially impair the 

integrity of the investigation. Depending 

on the circumstances of the 

investigation, informal channels may 

include voluntary production, informal 

interviews, or written summaries. 

(e) If negotiations are not successful in 

achieving a resolution that 

accommodates the Commission’s 

interest in the information and the 

media’s interests without issuing a 

subpoena, the staff investigating the 

matter should then consider whether to 

seek the issuance of a subpoena for the 

information. The following principles 

should guide the determination of 

whether a subpoena to a member of the 

news media should be issued: 

(1) There should be reasonable 

grounds to believe that the information 

sought is essential to successful 

completion of the investigation. The 

subpoena should not be used to obtain 

peripheral or nonessential information. 

(2) The staff should have exhausted 

all reasonable alternative means of 

obtaining the information from nonmedia sources. Whether all reasonable 

efforts have been made to obtain the 

information from alternative sources 

will depend on the particular 

circumstances of the investigation, 

including whether there is an 

immediate need to preserve assets or 

protect investors from an ongoing fraud. 

(f) If there are reasonable grounds to 

believe the information sought is 

essential to the investigation, all 

reasonable alternative means of 

obtaining it have been exhausted, and 

all efforts at negotiation have failed, 

then the staff investigating the matter 

shall seek authorization for the 

subpoena from the Director of the 

Division of Enforcement. No subpoena 

shall be issued unless the Director, in 

consultation with the General Counsel, 

has authorized its issuance. 

(g) In the event the Director of the 

Division of Enforcement, after 

consultation with the General Counsel, 

authorizes the issuance of a subpoena, 

notice shall immediately be provided to 

the Chairman of the Commission. 

(h) Counsel (or the member of the 

news media, if not represented by 

counsel) shall be given reasonable and 

timely notice of the determination of the 

Director of the Division of Enforcement 

to authorize the subpoena and the 

Director’s intention to issue it. 

(i) Subpoenas should be negotiated 

with counsel for the member of the 

news media to narrowly tailor the 

request for only essential information. 

In negotiations with counsel, the staff 

should attempt to accommodate the 

interests of the Commission in the 

information with the interests of the 

media. 

(j) Subpoenas should, wherever 

possible, be directed at material 

information regarding a limited subject 

matter, should cover a reasonably 

limited period of time, and should avoid 

requiring production of a large volume 

of unpublished material. They should 

give reasonable and timely notice of 

their demand for documents. 

(k) In the absence of special 

circumstances, subpoenas to members 

of the news media should be limited to 

the verification of published 

information and to surrounding 

circumstances relating to the accuracy 

of published information. 

(l) Because the intent of this policy 

statement is to protect freedom of the 

press, news gathering functions, and 

news media sources, this policy 

statement does not apply to demands for 

purely commercial or financial 

information unrelated to the news 

gathering function. 

(m) Failure to follow this policy may 

constitute grounds for appropriate 

disciplinary action. The principles set 

forth in this statement are not intended 

to create or recognize any legally 

enforceable rights in any person. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: April 12, 2006. 

Nancy M. Morris, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06–3739 Filed 4–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 272 

[FRL–8055–7] 

Idaho: Incorporation by Reference of 

Approved State Hazardous Waste 

Management Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA), 

allows EPA to authorize State hazardous 

waste management programs if EPA 

finds that such programs are equivalent 

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 final rule revises the 

codification of the Idaho authorized 

program. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 20, 2006. The incorporation by 

reference of authorized provisions in the 

Idaho statutes and regulations contained 

in this rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of April 20, 

2006 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and 1 CFR part 51. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–RCRA–2005–0465. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy by contacting Jeff Hunt, U.S. EPA, 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail 

stop AWT–122, Seattle, WA 98101, email: hunt.jeff@epa.gov, phone number 

(206) 553–0256. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Mail stop AWT–122, Seattle, 

WA 98101, e-mail: hunt.jeff@epa.gov, 

phone number (206) 553–0256. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
20342 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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, as 

amended, allows the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) 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 the 

authority to exercise its inspection and 

enforcement authorities in accordance 

with 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 codifies EPA’s 

authorization of revisions to Idaho’s 

hazardous waste management program. 

This codification 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. 

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 finalizing the revision of 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 Made in 

This Action? 

In a Federal Register notice published 

December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75098), EPA 

sought public comment on the proposal 

to codify EPA’s authorization of 

revisions to Idaho’s hazardous waste 

management program. The comment 

period for this proposed rule ended 

January 18, 2006, and EPA received no 

comments. Therefore, today’s action 

codifies Idaho’s hazardous waste 

management program as proposed. 

EPA is incorporating by reference the 

authorized revisions to the Idaho 

hazardous waste program by revising 

subpart N of 40 CFR part 272. 40 CFR 

part 272, Subpart N, § 272.651 

previously incorporated 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, 

Section 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. 

D. What Is the Effect of Idaho’s 

Codification on Enforcement? 

EPA retains the authority under 

statutory provisions, including but not 

limited to, RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 

3013 and 7003, 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 

incorporating 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 

revises 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 Part of 

the Codification? 

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 updates 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 

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 Codification does not affect 

Federal HSWA requirements for which 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 20343 

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 

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 rule codifies revisions to Idaho’s 

authorized hazardous waste program 

and imposes no requirements other than 

those currently imposed by State law. 

This rule complies 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. It has been determined that this 

final 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 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., because this 

final rule does not establish or modify 

any information or recordkeeping 

requirements for the regulated 

community and only codifies the preexisting requirements under State law 

authorized by EPA and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility 

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 rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

defined by the Small Business 

Administrations’ Size 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-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. EPA has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

small entities because the final rule will 

only have the effect of codifying the 

authorized pre-existing requirements 

under State law and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. After considering 

the economic impacts of today’s rule, I 

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. L. 

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 one 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 and 

adopt 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. Today’s 

rule contains no Federal mandates 

(under the regulatory provisions of Title 

II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
20344 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

governments or the private sector. It 

imposes no new enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Similarly, EPA has 

also determined that this rule contains 

no regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

government entities. Thus, today’s rule 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 203 of the UMRA. 

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 rule 

does not have federalism 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 rule addresses the codification of 

authorized pre-existing State rules. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this 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 rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. Thus, 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. This 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 

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. This 

rule does not involve ‘‘technical 

standards’’ as defined by the NTTAA. 

Therefore, EPA is 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 rule 

addresses codifying pre-existing State 

rules authorized by EPA and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law and there are no 

anticipated significant adverse human 

health or environmental effects, the rule 

is not subject to Executive Order 12898. 

11. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit 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 United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective on April 20, 2006. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 272 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Hazardous waste, Incorporation by 

reference, Indians-lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control, 

Water supply. 

Authority: This 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: March 23, 2006. 

Ronald A. Kreizenbeck, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA amends 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 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 20345 

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: 

(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; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES
20346 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

58.01.05.016; 58.01.05.356.01; and 

58.01.05.998. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 06–3354 Filed 4–19–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 050722198–6084–02; I.D. 

071805B] 

RIN 0648–AS93 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Observer 

Program 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to 

amend regulations supporting the North 

Pacific Groundfish Observer Program 

(Observer Program). This action is 

necessary to revise requirements 

facilitating observer data transmission, 

improve support for observers, and 

provide consistency with current 

regulations. The final rule will promote 

the goals and objectives of the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area and the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Gulf of Alaska (FMPs). 

DATES: Effective on May 22, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory 

Impact Review/Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (RIR/FRFA) 

prepared for this action may be obtained 

from the NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 

21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Records 

Officer, and the Alaska Region, NMFS, 

website at www.fakr.noaa.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted to NMFS, Alaska 

Region, and by email to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Anderson, 907–586–7228, or 

jason.anderson@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish 

fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Management Area (BSAI) and 

Gulf of Alaska (GOA) in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone under the FMPs. The 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) has prepared the 

FMPs pursuant to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations 

implementing the FMPs appear at 50 

CFR part 679. General regulations that 

pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at 

subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. 

The Council adopted and NMFS 

approved and implemented the current 

‘‘interim’’ Observer Program (Observer 

Program) in 1996 (61 FR 56425, 

November 1, 1996). The Observer 

Program was extended on four 

occasions: through 1998 (62 FR 67755, 

December 30, 1997), through 2000 (63 

FR 69024, December 15, 1998), through 

2002 (65 FR 80381, December 21, 2000), 

and through 2007 (67 FR 72595, 

December 6, 2002). The Observer 

Program develops regulations for the 

collection of information necessary for 

the conservation and management of the 

groundfish fisheries managed under the 

FMPs. Regulations implementing the 

Observer Program at § 679.50 require 

observer coverage aboard catcher 

vessels, catcher/processors, 

motherships, and shoreside and 

stationary floating processors that 

participate in the groundfish fisheries 

off Alaska and establish vessel, 

processor, and observer provider 

responsibilities relating to the Observer 

Program. 

Timely electronic communication 

between the fishing industry and NMFS 

of catch reports submitted to NMFS by 

industry and observers is crucial to the 

effective in-season monitoring of 

groundfish quotas and protected species 

catch allowances. In July 1995, NMFS 

issued a final rule that required all 

catcher/processors, motherships, and 

shoreside processors that process 

groundfish to have computer hardware 

and software that would enable 

observers to send electronic data to 

NMFS (60 FR 34904, July 5, 1995). In 

October 2003, a final rule was published 

(68 FR 58038, October 8, 2003) that 

extended the requirements to all catcher 

vessels that are required to carry an 

observer whenever fishing. 

Regulations describing hardware and 

software requirements for electronic 

submission of observer reports are 

found at § 679.50(g)(1) and (g)(2). This 

electronic data submission and 

communications system is called the 

observer communications system (OCS, 

previously referred to as ‘‘ATLAS’’). 

This system consists of computers and 

communications equipment supplied by 

catcher vessels, catcher/processors, 

motherships, and shoreside or 

stationary floating processors, and 

custom software provided by NMFS. 

The OCS system allows observers to 

rapidly process and report the data they 

collect to NMFS. Its use on catcher 

vessels, catcher/processors, 

motherships, and shoreside or 

stationary floating processors has led to 

more timely and accurate fisheries data. 

The proposed rule for this action was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 8, 2005 (70 FR 45638), with 

comments invited through September 7, 

2005. NMFS received three letters of 

comment that contained five separate 

comments. Comments are summarized 

and responded to under Response to 

Comments, below. 

Revisions to OCS Regulations 

Observer Program staff periodically 

upgrade the software component of the 

OCS. Upgraded OCS software improves 

overall data quality. This action amends 

regulations that require catcher vessels, 

catcher/processors, motherships, and 

shoreside or stationary floating 

processors carrying OCS equipment to 

install hardware upgrades to meet 

current technology standards necessary 

to support OCS software and facilitate 

its installation. Presently, regulations at 

§ 679.50(g)(1)(iii)(B)(1) and 

(g)(2)(iii)(B)(1) require a minimum of a 

Windows 9x or NT compatible 

operating system, both of which are 

older, now unsupported operating 

systems. This action amends regulations 

at § 679.50(g)(1)(iii)(B)(1) and 

(g)(2)(iii)(B)(1) to require a Windows 98 

or more recent operating system such as 

Windows 2000, Millennium, or XP. 

NMFS believes Windows based 

operating systems are acceptable 

because the upgraded software 

component is only compatible with 

Windows based operating systems. The 

regulations also are revised to require 

catcher vessels, catcher/processors, 

motherships, and shoreside or 

stationary floating processors to provide 

for observers a personal computer with 

a functioning compact disc (CD) drive. 

Additionally, personal computers must 

have a minimum random access 

memory (RAM) of 256 megabytes. 

Personal computers must operate the 

larger, more sophisticated software and 

database programs provided by NMFS. 

The new NMFS software requires an 

upgraded operating system to function. 

The software now is stored on a CD 

medium, which facilitates easier and 

efficient installation. Windows 95 is no 

longer supported by the manufacturer, 

so newer Windows versions are 

necessary. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with RULES