Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 70841 

b. What Do the Proposals Address? 

The proposals need to provide 

information that allows a determination 

of whether the substance is a POP in the 

context of the Protocol. The proposals 

(e.g., risk profiles) are described as a 

comprehensive review of the scientific 

information related to the determination 

of general human health and 

environmental risks associated with the 

uses and releases of a substance. 

Specifically, the proposals document 

the following characteristics: potential 

for long-range transport; toxicity; 

persistence; and bioaccumulation. The 

POPs Protocol provides guidance on 

numerical descriptors, as appropriate, to 

assist in the evaluation of the above 

characteristics in the context of the 

program. In addition to individual 

determinations, the evaluation includes 

a consideration as to whether sufficient 

information exists to suggest that the 

substance is likely to have significant 

adverse human health and/or 

environmental effects as a result of its 

long-range transboundary atmospheric 

transport (LRAT). The protocol also 

provides guidance to assist in the 

evaluation of socio-economic 

information to help frame the strategy 

for reducing risks from the proposed 

substances. The proposal must include, 

as available, information on release to 

the environment, including production, 

uses, and emissions, plus socioeconomic factors related to the 

alternatives and/or techniques available 

to reduce emissions of the proposed 

substance. At this time, the proposals 

are available for public review and 

submission of comments and 

information (see the ADDRESSES section 

of this NODA for where to find these 

proposals) to supplement information 

contained in the dossiers. All relevant 

comments and information will be 

considered during the technical reviews 

of these proposals. 

c. What Is Involved in the Technical 

Review of These Proposals? 

The Executive Body (EB) (which is 

the Convention’s ‘‘conference of the 

parties’’), has decided that the Task 

Force on POPs shall prepare technical 

reviews of such proposals when 

requested to do so, and present relevant 

documentation on the proposals to the 

Working Group on Strategies and 

Review (WGSR). The WGSR is the group 

under the Convention which amongst 

other activities, develops ‘‘strategies 

(i.e., negotiates) for action on substances 

and proposes such actions for adoption 

by the EB. Membership of the Task 

Force is open to experts from all Parties 

to the Convention, and to authorized 

representatives of intergovernmental or 

accredited non-governmental 

organizations. The Task Force on POPs 

receives its instructions from the annual 

work plan of the EB, but reports to the 

WGSR. 

A definitive description of the process 

for technical reviews of the proposals 

can be found at the following Web site: 

http://www.unece.org/env/popsxg/ 

proposals%20for%20NEW%20pops. 

htm. 

The proposals submitted by the 

European Commission and the 

Netherlands will be considered by the 

EB of the Convention at its session on 

December 12–15, 2005 for acceptability 

and referral to the Task Force on POPs 

for technical review. These proposals 

can be reviewed at the website listed 

above in the ADDRESSES section of this 

NODA. Comments and information may 

be submitted until December 9, 2005 to 

the entities listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

d. Other Proposals 

Last year Norway submitted a 

proposal for pentbromodiphenyl ether 

(PeBDE) and Sweden submitted a 

proposal for perfluorocotane sulfonate 

(PFOS). These proposals were referred 

by the EB of the Convention for 

technical review to the Task Force on 

POPs in its session in December 2004. 

Both of these substances underwent the 

first stage of technical review by the 

Task Force on POPs, and have been 

recommended by the WGSR as POPs, as 

defined under the POPs Protocol to the 

EB of the Convention. (http:// 

www.unece.org/env/documents/2005/ 

eb/wg5/eb.air.wg.5.2005.1.e.pdf). 

Based on the recommendation of the 

WGSR, the Task Force on POPs is 

expected to be asked by the EB to 

develop proposed management 

strategies for both PeBDE and PFOS. To 

develop these management strategies, 

information on production/uses/ 

emissions, measured environmental 

levels in areas distant from sources, 

abiotic and biotic degradation processes, 

and rates, degradation products, bioavailability; and socio-economic factors 

related to the alternatives and/or the 

techniques available to reduce the 

emissions of the proposed substance 

including: Alternatives to the existing 

uses and their efficacy; any known 

adverse environmental or human health 

effects associated with the alternatives; 

process changes, control technologies, 

operating practices, and other pollution 

prevention techniques which can be 

used to reduce the emissions of the 

substance, and their applicability and 

effectiveness; and the non-monetary 

costs and benefits as well as the 

quantifiable costs and benefits 

associated with the use of these 

alternatives and/or techniques is being 

sought. This information may be 

submitted until December 9, 2005 to the 

entities listed in the ADDRESSES section. 

Dated: November 14, 2005. 

William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 05–23227 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8001–6] 

Adequacy of Illinois Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfill Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

determination of adequacy. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is 

proposing to approve a modification to 

Illinois’ approved municipal solid waste 

landfill (MSWLF) permit program. The 

modification allows the State to issue 

research, development and 

demonstration (RD&D) permits to 

owners and operators of MSWLF units 

in accordance with its State law and 

regulations. 

DATES: All comments on Illinois’

application for approval of its research, 

development and demonstration permit 

modification must be received by close 

of business on December 23, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to Donna Twickler, Waste 

Management Branch (Mail code: DW–

8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, 

telephone: (312) 886–6184. Comments 

may also be submitted electronically to: 

twickler.donna@epa.gov or by facsimile 

at (312) 353–4788. You may examine 

copies of the relevant portions of 

Illinois’ regulations during normal 

business hours at U.S. EPA Region 5. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Twickler, Waste Management 

Branch (Mail code DW–8J), U.S. EPA 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 

886–6184, twickler.donna@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

On March 22, 2004, U.S. EPA issued 

a final rule amending the municipal 

solid waste landfill criteria in 40 CFR 

part 258 to allow for research, 

70842 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 

development and demonstration (RD&D) 

permits (69 FR 13242). This rule allows 

for variances from specified criteria for 

a limited period of time, to be 

implemented through State-issued 

RD&D permits. RD&D permits are only 

available in States with approved 

MSWLF permit programs which have 

been modified to incorporate RD&D 

permit authority. While States are not 

required to seek approval for this new 

provision, those States that are 

interested in providing RD&D permits to 

owners and operators of MSWLFs must 

seek approval from U.S. EPA before 

issuing such permits. Approval 

procedures for new provisions of 40 

CFR part 258 are outlined in 40 CFR 

239.12. 

Illinois MSWLF permit program was 

approved on January 3, 1994 (59 FR 86). 

On September 21, 2005, Illinois applied 

for approval of its RD&D permit 

provisions. Illinois submitted its rules 

under R05–1 for review. 

B. Decision 

After a thorough review, U.S. EPA 

Region 5 is proposing that Illinois’

RD&D permit provisions as defined 

under Illinois rule R05–1 are adequate 

to ensure compliance with the Federal 

criteria as defined at 40 CFR 258.4. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of section 2002, 4005 and 4010(c) 

of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 

42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a). 

Dated: November 16, 2005. 

Norman Niedergang, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 05–23228 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Public Information Collections 

Approved by Office of Management 

and Budget 

November 10, 2005. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) has received Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for the following public 

information collections pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. 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 control number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Laurenzano, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418–1359 

or via the Internet at plaurenz@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control No.: 3060–0526. 

OMB Approval Date: 10/26/2005. 

Expiration Date: 10/31/2008. 

Title: Density Pricing Zone Plans, 

Expanded Interconnection with Local 

Telephone Company Facilities, CC 

Docket No. 91–141. 

Form No.: N/A. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 17 

responses; 816 total annual burden 

hours; approximately 48 hours average 

per respondent. 

Needs and Uses: The Commission 

requires Tier 1 Local Exchange Carriers 

(LECs) to provide expanded 

opportunities for third-party 

interconnection with their interstate 

special access facilities. The LECs are 

permitted to establish a number of rate 

zones within study areas in which 

expanded interconnection is 

operational. In the Fifth Report and 

Order in CC Docket No. 96–262, the 

Commission allows price cap LECs to 

define the scope and number of zones 

within a study area. These LECs must 

file and obtain approval of their pricing 

plans which will be used by FCC staff 

to ensure that the rates are just, 

reasonable and nondiscriminatory. 

OMB Control No.: 3060–0742. 

OMB Approval Date: 11/01/2005. 

Expiration Date: 11/30/2008. 

Title: Telephone Number Portability 

(47 CFR Part 52, Subpart C, Sections 

52.21–52.33) and CC Docket No. 95–

116. 

Form No.: N/A. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 2,027 

responses; 14,333 total annual burden 

hours; approximately 2–149 hours 

average per respondent. 

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR Part 52, 

Subpart C implements the statutory 

requirement that local exchange carriers 

(LECs) and Commercial Mobile Radio 

Service (CMRS) providers provide local 

number probability (LNP). This 

collection is being revised to include the 

implementation of wireless carriers 

providing LNP. Wireline carriers began 

providing LNP in 1998. In a 

Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 

02–215) in CC Docket No. 95–116, the 

Commission extended the deadline for 

CMRS providers to offer LNP. Long-term 

number portability must be provided by 

LECs and CMRS providers in switches 

for which another carrier has made a 

specific request for number portability, 

according to the Commission’s 

deployment schedule. Carriers that are 

unable to meet the deadlines for 

implementing a long-term number 

portability solution are required to file 

with the Commission at least 60 days in 

advance of the deadline a petition to 

extend the time by which 

implementation in its network will be 

completed. 

Incumbent LECs may recover their 

carrier-specific costs directly related to 

providing long-term number portability 

by establishing in tariffs filed with the 

Commission certain number portability 

charges. Incumbent LECs are required to 

include many details in their cost 

support that are unique to the number 

portability proceeding pursuant to the 

Cost Classification Order. For instance, 

incumbent LECs must demonstrate that 

any incremental overhead costs claimed 

in their cost support are actually new 

costs incremental to and resulting from 

the provision of long-term number 

portability. Incumbent LECs are 

required to maintain records that detail 

both the nature and specific amount of 

these carrier-specific costs that are 

directly related to number portability, 

and those carrier-specific costs that are 

not directly related to number 

portability. 

OMB Control No.: 3060–0989. 

OMB Approval Date: 11/01/2005. 

Expiration Date: 11/30/2008. 

Title: Procedures for Applicants 

Requiring Section 214 Authorization for 

Domestic Interstate Transmission Lines 

Acquired Through Corporate Control, 47 

CFR Sections 63.01, 63.03 and 63.04. 

Form No.: N/A. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 86 

responses; 959 total annual burden 

hours; approximately 1.5–12 hours 

average per respondent. 

Needs and Uses: Procedures for 

Applicants Requiring Section 214 

Authorization for Domestic Interstate 

Transmission Lines Acquired Through 

Corporate Control are set forth for 

common carriers requiring authorization 

under section 214 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (Act), 47 U.S.C. 214, to acquire 

domestic interstate transmission lines 

through a transfer of control. Under 

section 214 of the Act, carriers must 

obtain Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) approval before 

constructing, acquiring, or operating an 

interstate transmission line. 

Acquisitions involving interstate 

common carriers therefore require 

affirmative action by the FCC before the 

acquisition can occur. 

OMB Control No.: 3060–0770. 

OMB Approval Date: 11/07/2005. 

Expiration Date: 11/30/2008. 

Title: Price Cap Performance Review 

for Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket 

No. 94–1 (New Services). 

Form No.: N/A. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 34 

responses; 170 total annual burden 

hours; approximately 5 hours average 

per respondent.