57152 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g.), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. This rule establishes a 

safety zone. 

A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ will be 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T05–122 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T05–122 Safety zone; Fireworks 

Display, Potomac River, Washington, DC. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of the Potomac 

River in Washington, DC, surface to 

bottom, within a radius of 200 yards 

around two fireworks barges which will 

be located approximately 1,000 feet 

upstream of the Theodore Roosevelt 

Memorial Bridge, at position latitude 

38°53′45.7′′ N, longitude 077°03′31.6′′ 

W. All coordinates reference Datum 

NAD. 

(b) Definition. The Captain of the Port 

Baltimore means the Commander, Coast 

Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been authorized by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

(c) Regulations. The general 

regulations governing safety zones, 

found in Sec. 165.23, apply to the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(1) All vessels and persons are 

prohibited from entering this zone, 

except as authorized by the Captain of 

the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. 

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into or passage within the zone must 

request authorization from the Captain 

of the Port or his designated 

representative by telephone at (410) 

576–2693 or by marine band radio on 

VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

(3) All Coast Guard vessels enforcing 

this safety zone can be contacted on 

marine band radio VHF channel 16 

(156.8 MHz). 

(4) The operator of any vessel within 

or in the immediate vicinity of this 

safety zone shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a Coast 

Guard Ensign, and 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a Coast 

Guard Ensign. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone by Federal, 

State and local agencies. 

(e) Effective period. This section is 

effective from 7:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on 

October 1, 2005. 

Dated: September 19, 2005. 

Jonathan C. Burton, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. 

[FR Doc. 05–19584 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[FRL–7977–4] 

Montana: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Immediate final rule. 

SUMMARY: Montana has applied to EPA 

for Final authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that 

these changes satisfy all requirements 

for Final authorization and is 

authorizing the State’s changes through 

this immediate Final action. EPA is 

publishing this rule to authorize the 

changes without a prior proposed rule 

because we believe this action is not 

controversial. Unless we get written 

comments opposing this authorization 

during the comment period, the 

decision to authorize Montana’s changes 

to their hazardous waste program will 

take effect as provided below. If we 

receive comments that oppose this 

action, we will publish a document in 

the Federal Register withdrawing this 

rule before it takes effect. A separate 

document in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register will serve as the 

proposal to authorize the State’s 

changes. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57153 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

by October 31, 2005. Unless EPA 

receives comments that oppose this 

action, this Final authorization approval 

will become effective without further 

notice on November 29, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by 

one of the following methods: 1. Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 2. 

E-mail: shurr.kris@epa.gov. 3. Mail: Kris 

Shurr, 8P–HW, U.S. EPA, Region 8, 999 

18th St, Ste 300, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466, phone number: (303) 312–

6139. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier: to 

Kris Shurr, 8P–HW, U.S. EPA, Region 8, 

999 18th St, Ste 300, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466, phone number: (303) 312–

6139. 

Instructions: Do not submit 

information that you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or information that should be otherwise 

protected from disclosure through 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The Federal 

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 

regulations.gov, your e-mail 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. 

You can view and copy Montana’s 

application at the following addresses: 

MDEQ from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 1520 E 6th 

Ave, Helena, MT 59620, contact: Bob 

Martin, phone number (406) 444–4194 

and EPA Region 8, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., 

999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 

80202–2466, contact: Kris Shurr, phone 

number: (303) 312–6139, e-mail: 

shurr.kris@epa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris 

Shurr, EPA Region 8, 999 18th Street, 

Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202–

2466, phone number: (303) 312–6139, 

e-mail: shurr.kris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are Revisions to State Programs 

Necessary? 

States that have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

equivalent to, consistent with, and no 

less stringent than the Federal program. 

As the Federal program changes, States 

must change their programs and ask 

EPA to authorize their changes. Changes 

to State programs may be necessary 

when Federal or State statutory or 

regulatory authority is modified or 

when certain other changes occur. Most 

commonly, States must change their 

programs because of changes to EPA’s 

regulations in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 

through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

B. What Decisions Have We Made in 

This Rule? 

We conclude that Montana’s 

application to revise its authorized 

program meets all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA. Therefore, we grant Montana 

Final authorization to operate its 

hazardous waste program with the 

changes described in the authorization 

application. Montana has responsibility 

for permitting Treatment, Storage, and 

Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its 

borders, except in Indian country, and 

for carrying out those portions of the 

RCRA program described in its revised 

program application, subject to the 

limitations of the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

New Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by Federal 

regulations that EPA promulgates under 

the authority of HSWA take effect in 

authorized States before they are 

authorized for the requirements. Thus, 

EPA will implement those requirements 

and prohibitions in Montana, including 

issuing permits, until Montana is 

authorized to do so. 

C. What is the Effect of Today’s 

Authorization Decision? 

The effect of this decision is that 

facilities in Montana subject to RCRA 

will now have to comply with the 

authorized State requirements instead of 

the equivalent Federal requirements. 

Montana has primary enforcement 

responsibility under its state hazardous 

waste program for violations of the 

program, but EPA retains its authority 

under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 

and 7003, which include, among others, 

the authority to conduct inspections and 

require monitoring, tests, analyses, or 

reports; and enforce RCRA requirements 

and suspend or revoke permits. 

This action does not impose 

additional requirements on the 

regulated community because the 

regulations for which Montana is being 

authorized are already effective and are 

not changed by today’s action. 

D. Why Wasn’t There A Proposed Rule 

Before Today’s Rule? 

EPA did not publish a proposal before 

today’s rule because this action is a 

routine program change, and we do not 

expect comments opposing this 

approval. We are providing an 

opportunity for public comment at this 

time. In addition, in the proposed rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

there is a separate document that 

proposes to authorize the State program 

changes. If we receive comments 

opposing this authorization, that 

document will serve as a proposal to 

authorize the changes. 

E. What Happens If EPA Receives 

Comments Opposing This Action? 

If EPA receives comments opposing 

this authorization, we will withdraw 

this rule by publishing a notice in the 

Federal Register before the rule 

becomes effective. We then will address 

all public comments in a later Federal 

Register. You may not have another 

opportunity to comment. If you want to 

comment on this action, you must do so 

at this time. 

If we receive comments opposing 

authorization of only a particular 

change to the State hazardous waste 

program, we will withdraw that part of 

the rule. However, the authorization of 

program changes that are not opposed 

by any comments will become effective 

on the date specified above. The Federal 

Register withdrawal document will 

specify which part of the authorization 

will become effective and which part is 

being withdrawn. 

F. What Has Montana Previously Been 

Authorized For? 

Montana initially received Final 

authorization on July 11, 1984, effective 

July 25, 1984 (49 FR 28245) to 

implement the RCRA hazardous waste 

management program. We granted 

authorization for changes to their 

program on July 11, 1984, effective 

September 25, 1985 (49 FR 28245), 

January 19, 1994, effective March 21, 

1994 (59 FR 02752), and December 26, 

2000, effective December 26, 2000 (65 

FR 81381). 

G. What Changes Are We Authorizing 

With Today’s Action? 

On July 28, 2005, Montana submitted 

a final revision application, seeking 

57154 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

authorization of program changes in 

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. 

We now make an immediate final 

decision, subject to receipt of written 

comments opposing this action, that 

Montana’s hazardous waste program 

revision satisfies all of the requirements 

necessary for Final authorization. 

Therefore, we grant Montana final 

authorization for its entire Hazardous 

Waste Program, excluding the broaderin-scope provisions, as found at 

Administrative Rules of Montana 

(ARM), Title 17, Chapter 53, effective 

March 9, 2005, which incorporated 40 

CFR parts 124 and 260 through 268, 

270, 273, and 279, effective July 1, 2004. 

Montana has revised it’s entire program 

using a method that incorporates the 

Federal Program by reference. This 

method clearly indicates where the 

State’s requirements are more stringent 

or broader-in-scope than the Federal 

requirements. EPA is also approving 

changes to the State’s Availability of 

Information requirements (AI), as well 

authorizing the State for the Exceptions 

to Blending and Burning of Hazardous 

Waste requirements [RCRA section 

3004(q)(2)(A), (r)(2) and (r)(3), as 

codified in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i)&(ii)] 

(Non-Checklist Item BB). 

In addition to the changes authorized 

above, EPA is also approving changes to 

the State’s procedural and enforcement 

provisions. EPA reviewed these 

provisions in order to determine the 

adequacy of Montana’s procedural and 

enforcement authorities to operate the 

hazardous waste program. In 

compliance with the requirements of 40 

CFR 271.16(a)(3)(ii), Montana has 

revised its provisions at Montana Code 

Annotated Section 75–10–418 to obtain 

criminal penalties for used oil violations 

(Non-Checklist Item CP), as well as 

hazardous waste violations. State 

procedural and enforcement provisions 

are not authorized by EPA and do not 

supplant the Federal procedural and 

enforcement provisions. EPA relies on 

Federal procedural and enforcement 

authorities rather than the State analogs 

to these provisions. Montana’s 

procedures to implement the State’s 

hazardous waste management program 

requirements continue to operate 

independently under State law. The 

following State procedural and 

enforcement authorities are included as 

part of this action for informational 

purposes and are not part of the State’s 

program that operate in lieu of EPA: 

Montana Code Annotated 2005, sections 

2–3–101 et seq., 2–3–221, 2–4–103, 2–

4–315, 2–6–101 et seq., 2–15–3501 et 

seq., 27–30–204, 30–14–402 et seq., 75–

10–107, and 75–10–401 et seq.; and 

Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 

24(a). 

H. Where Are the Revised State Rules 

Different From the Federal Rules? 

The State has not adopted the 

following Federal rules: 40 CFR 260.20, 

260.21, 260.22, and 260.23. (See ARM 

17.53.401.) While this does not make 

the State more stringent, the regulated 

community must apply to the Regional 

office and comply with the Federal 

requirements for petitions, including 

delisting petitions, addressed by these 

rules. The State does not adopt any 

provision associated with the regulation 

of underground injection; instead, the 

responsibility for this part of the 

program is left with EPA (see 

17.53.102(3), 17.53.802(2), 

17.53.902(18), 17.53.1202(16) and 

17.53.1202(18)). The State also has not 

adopted the permit by rule requirements 

for ocean disposal barges, because the 

State is landlocked and the provisions 

do not apply to the State. 

The State has requirements that are 

more stringent than the Federal rules at 

(references are to the Administrative 

Rules of Montana, Title 17): 

17.53.502(2), 17.53.602(2), 17.53.602(3), 

17.53.603, 17.53.802(5), 17.53.803, 

17.53.902(6), 17.53.903 and 

17.53.1202(11) require annual rather 

than biennial reports; 17.53.803(1)(f)(iii) 

requires the most recent corrective 

action cost estimate to be submitted in 

the annual report; 17.53.702(2) through 

(4), 17.53.704 and 17.53.706 through 

708 contain additional requirements for 

transfer facilities; 17.53.602(7) and (8) 

require the primary exporter to also file 

a report with the Montana Department 

of Environmental Quality; 17.53.602(9) 

gives both EPA and the State the 

authority to extend the record retention 

period; 17.53.1002(1), 17.53.1002(6) and 

17.53.1003 prohibit certain wastes, 

including the dioxin wastes, from being 

burned in a Boiler and Industrial 

Furnace (BIF); 17.53.1002(2) and 

17.53.1004 require that BIFs also 

perform background and periodic 

testing of soils and water in addition to 

the 40 CFR 266.102 requirements; 

17.53.1002(4) does not allow the 40 CFR 

266.102(e)(3)(ii) exemption from the 

particulate standards for BIFs and adds 

a provision that gives the Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

the discretion to require a BIF owner/ 

operator submit, in conjunction with the 

permit application, a plan that will 

require cessation of hazardous waste 

burning during prolonged inversion 

conditions; 17.53.1002(5) requires 

annual stack emissions in addition to 40 

CFR 266.102(e)(8)(i)(C); 17.53.1002(7) 

does not allow the 40 CFR 266.105(b) 

waiver from the BIF particulate matter 

standard; and 17.53.1002(6) and 

17.53.1002(8) do not allow the 40 CFR 

266.109 low risk exemption and the 

§ 266.110 waiver of the DRE trial burn 

for boilers; 17.53.1202(10) does not 

allow the submission of data in lieu of 

a trial burn as per 40 CFR 

270.22(a)(1)(ii) and 270.22(a)(6); 

17.53.1202(14) and (15) require that the 

term of a Boiler and Industrial Furnace 

permit be only five years and the permit 

may be modified to assure that the 

facility is in compliance with the 

current applicable requirements. The 

State does not allow interim status for 

BIFs; thus, does not adopt 40 CFR 

266.103 and the language associated 

with it in 40 CFR part 266 (see 

17.53.1002(3)), as well as 40 CFR 

270.66(g) (see 17.53.1202(19)). 

We also consider the State 

requirements to be broader-in-scope 

than the Federal program at: 

17.53.111(2), 17.53.112, 17.53.113 and 

17.53.1202(5)(l) and (17), because the 

State requires permit application fees as 

well as registration fees; 17.53.703 is 

also broader-in-scope because it requires 

that transporters obtain a registration 

from the state. Broader-in-scope 

requirements are not part of the 

authorized program, and EPA cannot 

enforce them. Although a facility must 

comply with these requirements in 

accordance with State law, they are not 

RCRA requirements. 

EPA cannot delegate the Federal 

requirements at 40 CFR part 262, 

subparts E and H, §§ 268.5, 268.6, 

268.42(b), and 268.44(a) through (g). 

EPA will continue to implement these 

requirements. Additionally, the State 

has chosen not to adopt 40 CFR 

268.44(h) through (m); the responsibility 

for these requirements also remains 

with EPA. 

I. Who Handles Permits After This 

Authorization Takes Effect? 

Montana will issue and administer 

permits for all the provisions for which 

it is authorized. EPA will continue to 

administer any RCRA hazardous waste 

permits or portions of permits that we 

issued prior to the effective date of this 

authorization. EPA will transfer any 

pending permit applications, completed 

permits, or pertinent file information to 

Montana within 30 days of this 

approval. We will not issue any more 

new permits or new portions of permits 

for the provisions listed in the Table 

above after the effective date of this 

authorization. EPA and Montana have 

agreed to joint permitting and 

enforcement for those HSWA 

requirements for which Montana is not 

yet authorized. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57155 

J. How Does Today’s Action Affect 

Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in 

Montana? 

Montana is not authorized to carry out 

its hazardous waste program in Indian 

country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. 

This includes, but is not limited to: 

A. Lands within the exterior 

boundaries of the following Indian 

Reservations located within or abutting 

the State of Montana: 

a. Blackfeet Indian Reservation. 

b. Crow Tribe of Montana Indian 

Reservation. 

c. Flathead Indian Reservation. 

d. Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. 

e. Fort Peck Indian Reservation. 

f. Northern Cheyenne Indian 

Reservation. 

g. Rocky Boy’s Indian Reservation. 

B. Any land held in trust by the U.S. 

for an Indian tribe, and 

C. Any other land, whether on or off 

a reservation that qualifies as Indian 

country within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 

1151. 

Therefore, this program revision does 

not extend to Indian country where EPA 

will continue to implement and 

administer the RCRA program in these 

lands. 

K. What is Codification and is EPA 

Codifying Montana’s Hazardous Waste 

Program as Authorized in This Rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

the State’s authorized hazardous waste 

program statutes and regulations into 

the Code of Federal Regulations. We do 

this by referencing the authorized State 

rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the 

amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart 

BB for this authorization of Montana’s 

program until a later date. 

L. Administrative Requirements 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has exempted this action from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 

therefore this action is not subject to 

review by OMB. This action authorizes 

State requirements for the purpose of 

RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this action authorizes 

pre-existing requirements under State 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by State law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). For 

the same reason, this action also does 

not significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of Tribal governments, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action 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 the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 

merely authorizes State requirements as 

part of the State RCRA hazardous waste 

program without altering the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

RCRA. This action also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant and it does not 

make decisions based on environmental 

health or safety risks. 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 under Executive Order 

12866. 

Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA 

grants a State’s application for 

authorization as long as the State meets 

the criteria required by RCRA. It would 

thus be inconsistent with applicable law 

for EPA, when it reviews a State 

authorization application, to require the 

use of any particular voluntary 

consensus standard in place of another 

standard that otherwise satisfies the 

requirements of RCRA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 

steps to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. EPA has complied 

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 

takings implications of the rule in 

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney 

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for 

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’ issued under the 

executive order. This rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

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 document 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 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 

action will be effective November 29, 

2005. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 

transportation, Incorporation-byreference, Indians-lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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: September 22, 2005. 

Robert E. Roberts, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 05–19619 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL–7977–6] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct Final Deletion of the 

Batavia Landfill Superfund Site from 

the National Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 2, announces the 

deletion of the Batavia Landfill 

Superfund Site (Site), located in the 

Town of Batavia, Genesee County, New 

York, from the National Priorities List 

(NPL) and will consider public 

comment on this action. 

The NPL is Appendix B of the 

National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 

CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated