[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 15, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7658-7659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2891]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 239 and 258
[FRL-7873-1]
Adequacy of Minnesota Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is
approving a modification to Minnesota's 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.
DATES: This final determination is effective February 15, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Twickler, mailcode DW-8J, Waste
Management Branch, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 886-6184,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a final rule amending the municipal
solid waste landfill criteria in 40 CFR part 258 to allow for research,
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 EPA before issuing such permits.
Approval procedures for new provisions of 40 CFR Part 258 are outlined
in 40 CFR 239.12.
Minnesota's MSWLF permit program was approved on August 16, 1993
(58 FR 43350). On June 2, 2004, Minnesota applied for approval of its
RD&D permit provisions. On September 10, 2004, EPA published both an
immediate final rule (69 FR 54756) approving Minnesota's RD&D permit
requirements, and a parallel proposed rule (69 FR 54756) proposing to
approve Minnesota's RD&D permit requirements. Both notices provided a
public comment period that ended on October 12, 2004. The immediate
final rule would have become effective on Novermber 9, 2004, if no
adverse comments were received. However, EPA received one adverse
comment on the immediate final rule. Therefore, on November 3, 2004,
EPA withdrew the immediate final rule (69 FR 65381, Nov. 12, 2004).
Today's rule takes final action on the proposed approval of Minnesota's
program modification for RD&D permit authority. After a thorough
review, EPA Region 5 has determined that Minnesota's RD&D permit
provisions as defined under Minnesota Rule 7035.0450 are adequate to
ensure compliance with the Federal criteria as defined at 40 CFR 258.4.
B. Response to Comment
The commenter urged EPA not to approve Minnesota's or any state's
application to modify its approved MSWLF permit program to add RD&D
permit authority, because of a pending legal challenge to the EPA's
rule amending 40 CFR part 258 to allow for RD&D variances (GrassRoots
Recycling Network v. EPA, No. 04-1196 (D.C. Cir.)). EPA does not agree
that the pending legal challenge prevents implementation of the RD&D
rule. The existence of a petition for review does not, by itself,
suspend implementation of the RD&D rule. The commenter also opposes
modification of the state program in order to preserve state resources.
It is the State's, not EPA's, decision to implement the RD&D rule
during the pendency of the legal challenge, and Minnesota has decided
to seek approval of its permit program modification even with the
knowledge of the pending case.
In sum, the comment did not address either the substance or
adequacy of Minnesota's RD&D permit requirements, or the basis of EPA's
proposed decision to approve those requirements. EPA has concluded that
the comment is not a basis for disapproving Minnesota's permit program
modification.
C. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action approves state solid waste requirements pursuant to
RCRA Section 4005 and imposes no federal requirements. Therefore, this
rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions
as follows: 1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning Review--The
Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from its
review under Executive Order (EO) 12866; 2. Paperwork Reduction Act--
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the
Paperwork
[[Page 7659]]
Reduction Act; 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act--After considering the
economic impacts of today's action on small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act--Because this action approves pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, this
action does not contain any unfunded mandate, or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Act; 5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism--EO 13132 does not
apply to this action because this action will not have federalism
implications (i.e., there are no substantial direct effects on states,
on the relationship between the national government and states, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between federal and
state governments); 6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments--EO 13175 does not apply to
this action because it will not have tribal implications (i.e., there
are no substantial direct effects 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). 7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health & Safety Risks--This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it is not economically significant and is
not based on health or safety risks; 8. Executive Order 13211: Actions
that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--This
action is not subject to EO 13211 because it is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in EO 12866; 9. National Technology
Transfer Advancement Act--This provision 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
standards bodies. This action does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards. 10. Congressional Review Act--EPA will submit a report
containing this action 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.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 239
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Intergovernmental relations, Waste treatment and disposal.
40 CFR Part 258
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment disposal,
Water pollution control.
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: January 26, 2005.
Norman Neidergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, U.S EPA, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05-2891 Filed 2-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P