70740 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-(9Cl) in or on 

the raw agricultural commodities: 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Barley, grain ............................. 0.02 

Barley, hay ................................ 0.02 

Barley, straw ............................. 0.05 

Wheat, forage ........................... 0.05 

Wheat, grain ............................. 0.02 

Wheat, hay ............................... 0.02 

Wheat, straw ............................. 0.05 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–23106 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[FRL–8001–3] 

Indiana: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is granting Indiana 

Final authorization of the changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). The agency published a 

proposed rule on June 30, 2005 at 70 FR 

37726 and provided for public 

comment. The public comment period 

ended on August 1, 2005. We received 

no comments. No further opportunity 

for comment will be provided. EPA has 

determined that these changes satisfy all 

requirements needed to qualify for Final 

authorization, and is authorizing the 

State’s changes through this proposed 

final action. 

DATES: This final authorization will be 

effective on November 23, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You can view and copy 

Indiana’s application from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m. at the following addresses: Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management, 100 North Senate, 

Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204–2210, 

contact Steve Mojonnier (317) 233–

1655, or Lynn West (317) 232–3593; and 

EPA Region 5, contact Gary Westefer at 

the following address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Westefer, Indiana Regulatory Specialist, 

U.S. EPA Region 5, DM–7J, 77 West 

JacksonBoulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–7450. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

30, 2005, U.S. EPA published a 

proposed rule proposing to grant 

Indiana authorization for changes to its 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act program, listed in Section F of that 

notice, which was subject to public 

comment. No comments were received. 

We hereby determine that Indiana’s 

hazardous waste program revisions 

satisfy all of the requirements necessary 

to qualify for final authorization. 

A. Why Are Revisions to State 

Programs Necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

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

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is 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 the 

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 Indiana’s 

application to revise its authorized 

program meets all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant 

Indiana Final authorization to operate 

its hazardous waste program with the 

changes described in the authorization 

application. Indiana has responsibility 

for permitting Treatment, Storage, and 

Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its 

borders (except in Indian Country) and 

for carrying out the aspects 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 Indiana, including 

issuing permits, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What Is the Effect of Today’s 

Authorization Decision? 

This decision means that a facility in 

Indiana subject to RCRA will now have 

to comply with the authorized State 

requirements (listed in section F of this 

notice) instead of the equivalent Federal 

requirements in order to comply with 

RCRA. Indiana has enforcement 

responsibilities under its State 

hazardous waste program for violations 

of such program, but EPA retains its 

authority under RCRA sections 3007, 

3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, 

among others, authority to: 

1. Do inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports. 

2. Enforce RCRA requirements and 

suspend or revoke permits. 

3. Take enforcement actions 

regardless of whether the State has 

taken its own actions. 

This action does not impose 

additional requirements on the 

regulated community because the 

regulations for which Indiana is being 

authorized by today’s action are already 

effective, and are not changed by today’s 

action. 

D. Proposed Rule 

On June 30, 2005 (70 FR 37726), EPA 

published a proposed rule. In that rule 

we proposed granting authorization of 

changes to Indiana’s hazardous waste 

program and opened our decision to 

public comment. The Agency received 

no comments on this proposal. EPA 

found Indiana’s RCRA program to be 

satisfactory. 

E. What Has Indiana Previously Been 

Authorized For? 

Indiana initially received Final 

authorization on January 31, 1986, 

effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3955), 

to implement the RCRA hazardous 

waste management program. We granted 

authorization for changes to their 

program on October 31, 1986, effective 

December 31, 1986 (51 FR 39752); 

January 5, 1988, effective January 19, 

1988 (53 FR 128); July 13, 1989, 

effective September 11, 1989 (54 FR 

29557); July 23, 1991, effective 

September 23, 1991 (56 FR 33717); July 

24, 1991, effective September 23, 1991 

(56 FR 33866); July 29, 1991, effective 

September 27, 1991 (56 FR 35831); July 

30, 1991, effective September 30, 1991 

(56 FR 36010); August 20, 1996, 

effective October 21, 1996 (61 FR 

43018); September 1, 1999, effective 

November 30, 1999 (64 FR 47692); 

January 4, 2001 effective January 4, 

2001, (66 FR 733); December 6, 2001, 

effective December 6, 2001 (66 FR 

63331); and October 29, 2004, effective 

October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63100). 

F. What Changes Are We Authorizing 

With Today’s Action? 

On August 30, 2004, Indiana 

submitted a final complete program 

revision application, seeking 

authorization of their changes in 

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 70741 

now make a final decision, that 

Indiana’s hazardous waste program 

revision satisfies all of the requirements 

necessary to qualify for Final 

authorization. Therefore, we propose to 

grant Indiana Final authorization for the 

following program changes: 

Description of federal requirement 

(include checklist #, if relevant) 

Federal Register date and 

page (and/or RCRA statutory authority) Analogous state authority 

Correction to the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule 

(HWIR): Revisions to the Mixture and Derived-From 

Rules Checklist 194.

October 3, 2001, 66 FR 

50332.

329 IAC 3.1–6–1 Effective February 13, 2004. 

Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes; Identification 

and Listing Checklist 195 as amended Checklist 195.1.

November 20, 2001, 66 FR 

58258.

April 9, 2002, 67 FR 17119 

329 IAC 3.1–6–1; 3.1–6–2(19); 3.1–7–1; 3.1–12–1, Effective February 13, 2004. 

CAMU Amendments Checklist 196 .................................. January 22, 2002, 67 FR 

2962.

329 IAC 3.1–4–1; 3.1–4–1(b); 3.1–9–1; 3.1–9–2(16), 

Effective February 13, 2004. 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors: Interim Standards Checklist 197.February 13, 2002, 67 FR 

6792.

329 IAC 3.1–9–1; 3.1–11–1; 3.1–13–1, Effective February 13, 2004. 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors; Corrections Checklist 198.February 14, 2002, 67 FR 

6968.

329 IAC 3.1–11–1; 3.1–13–1, Effective February 13, 

2004. 

Vacatur of Mineral Processing Spent Materials Being 

Reclaimed as Solid Wastes and TCLP Use with MGP 

Waste Checklist 199.

March 13, 2002, 67 FR 

11251.

329 IAC 3.1–6–1; 3.1–6–2(2), Effective February 13, 

2004. 

G. Where Are the Revised State Rules 

Different From the Federal Rules? 

Indiana has excluded the nondelegable Federal requirements at 40 

CFR 268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), 268.44, and 

270.3 in their Incorporation by 

Reference at 3.1–12–2 and 3.1–13–2(4). 

EPA will continue to implement those 

requirements. This action involves no 

more stringent or broader in scope State 

requirements. 

H. Who Handles Permits After the 

Authorization Takes Effect? 

Indiana will issue permits for all the 

provisions for which it is authorized 

and will administer the permits it 

issues. EPA will continue to administer 

any RCRA hazardous waste permits or 

portions of permits which we issued 

prior to the effective date of this 

authorization until they expire or are 

terminated. 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 will continue to 

implement and issue permits for HSWA 

requirements for which Indiana is not 

yet authorized. 

I. How Does Today’s Action Affect 

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

Indiana? 

Indiana is not authorized to carry out 

its hazardous waste program in ‘‘Indian 

Country’’, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. 

Indian Country includes: 

1. All lands within the exterior 

boundaries of Indian reservations 

within the State of Indiana; 

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

for an Indian tribe; and 

3. Any other land, whether on or off 

an Indian reservation that qualifies as 

Indian Country. Therefore, EPA retains 

the authority to implement and 

administer the RCRA program in Indian 

Country. However, at this time, there is 

no Indian Country within the State of 

Indiana. 

J. What Is Codification and Is EPA 

Codifying Indiana’s Hazardous Waste 

Program as Authorized in This Rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

the State’s statutes and regulations that 

comprise the State’s authorized 

hazardous waste program into the Code 

of Federal Regulations. We do this by 

referencing the authorized State rules in 

40 CFR part 272. Indiana’s rules, up to 

and including those revised January 4, 

2001, have previously been codified 

through the incorporation-by-reference 

effective December 24, 2001 (66 FR 

53728, October 24, 2001). We reserve 

the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, 

subpart P for the codification of 

Indiana’s program changes until a later 

date. 

K. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This rule only authorizes hazardous 

waste requirements pursuant to RCRA 

3006 and imposes no requirements 

other than those imposed by State law 

(see Supplementary Information, 

Section A. Why are Revisions to State 

Programs Necessary?). Therefore this 

rule complies with applicable executive 

orders and statutory provisions as 

follows: 

1. Executive Order 18266: Regulatory 

Planning Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has exempted this rule from its review 

under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993). 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

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.). 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), I certify that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule approves preexisting 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). 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) does not apply to this 

rule because it will not have federalism 

implications (i.e., 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). 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000) does not apply to 

this rule because it will not have tribal 

implications (i.e., substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian Tribes, or 

70742 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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.) 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997), because it is not economically 

significant and it is not based on 

environmental health or safety risks. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined in 

Executive Order 12866. 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

EPA approves State programs as long 

as they meet criteria required by RCRA, 

so it would be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, in its review of 

a State program, to require the use of 

any particular voluntary consensus 

standard in place of another standard 

that meets 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 to this rule. 

10. Executive Order 12988 

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. 

11. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation 

of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings 

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. 

12. Congressional Review Act 

EPA will submit a report containing 

this rule and other information required 

by the Congressional Review Act (5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.) 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 

transportation, Indian 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: November 9, 2005. 

Margaret M. Guerriero, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 05–23214 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 05–2932; MB Docket No. 04–328; RM–

11046, RM–11235] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Americus and Oglethorpe, GA 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; denial of petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document denies a 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Southern Broadcasting Companies and 

Radio Georgia, Inc. directed at the 

Report and Order in this proceeding, 

which allotted Channel 295A at 

Americus, Georgia. See 70 FR 41630, 

published July 20, 2005. With this 

action, the proceeding is terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, MB 

Docket No. 04–328, adopted November 

4, 2005, and released November 7, 2005. 

The full text of this decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC 

Reference Information Center at Portals 

II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. The complete text of 

this decision may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1–

800–378–3160 or http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission 

will not send a copy of this 

Memorandum Opinion and Order 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because 

the aforementioned Petition for 

Reconsideration was denied. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 05–22844 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 05–2901, MM Docket No. 01–107, RM–

10057] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Hemlock 

and Mount Pleasant, MI 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; denial of petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: The staff denied a petition for 

reconsideration filed by MacDonald 

Broadcasting Company of a decision in 

this proceeding, reallotting and 

changing the community of license for 

Station WCEN–FM, Channel 233C1, 

from Mount Pleasant, MI, to Hemlock 

MI. The staff determined that the 

reconsideration petition did not 

demonstrate any errors of fact or law. 

Specifically, because Hemlock is not 

located inside the Saginaw, MI, 

Urbanized Area and because the station 

will not place a city-grade signal over 50 

percent or more of that Urbanized Area, 

a Tuck showing was not required to 

demonstrate that Hemlock is sufficiently 

independent of the Saginaw Urbanized 

Area to warrant a first local service 

preference. See 66 FR 55598 (November 

2, 2001). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM 

Docket No. 01–107, adopted November 

2, 2005, and released November 4, 2005. 

The full text of this Commission 

decision is available for inspection and 

copying during normal business hours 

in the FCC Reference Information Center 

(Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. The complete text of 

this decision may also be purchased