SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 request 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 Minnesota's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant Minnesota final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Minnesota 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 Minnesota, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?

The effect of this decision, once finalized, is that a facility in Minnesota subject to RCRA would have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Minnesota has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for RCRA violations, 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; and

1. Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits.

This action will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Minnesota is being authorized are already effective, and will not be changed by EPA's final action.

D. What happens if EPA receives adverse comments on this action?

If EPA receives adverse comments on this authorization, we 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 authorization, you must do so at this time.

E. What has Minnesota previously been authorized for?

Minnesota initially received Final (base) authorization on January 28, 1985, effective February 11, 1985 (50 FR 3756) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to Minnesota's program on July 20, 1987, effective September 18, 1987 (52 FR 27199); on April 24, 1989, effective June 23, 1989 (54 FR 16361) amended June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27170); on June 15, 1990, effective August 14, 1990 (55 FR 24232); on June 24, 1991, effective August 23, 1991 (56 FR 28709); on March 19, 1992, effective May 18, 1992 (57 FR 9501); on March 17, 1993, effective May 17, 1993 (58 FR 14321); on January 20, 1994, effective March 21, 1994 (59 FR 2998); and on May 25, 2000, effective August 23, 2000 (65 FR 33774). Minnesota also received authorization for the U.S. Filter Recovery Services Project XL on May 22, 2001, effective May 22, 2001 (66 FR 28085), and for the Joint Powers Agreement with Hennepin County on October 23, 2008 (73 FR 63074), effective October 23, 2008.

F. What changes are we proposing with today's action?

On June 2, 2010, Minnesota submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We are now proposing to authorize, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, Minnesota's hazardous waste program revision. We propose to grant Minnesota final authorization for the following program changes:

G. Which revised State rules are different from the Federal rules?

Minnesota has excluded the non-delegable Federal requirements at 40 CFR 268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), 268.44, and 270.3. EPA will continue to implement those requirements. In this action, Minnesota has chosen to remain more stringent in the Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements, (Checklist 175 above) by choosing not to adopt 40 CFR 270.79 through 270.230 which allow for Remedial Action Plans (RAP). The RAP is considered to be less stringent. Minnesota is more stringent in checklist 108, as it does not recognize the list of excluded processes, nor does it have provision to waive the double liner requirement in 40 CFR 265.301(d). In rule revision (Checklist) 118, Minnesota does not allow any liquids in landfills even as provided for in 40 CFR 264.314. In rule revision (Checklist) 142, Minnesota does not contain a provision to add a Universal Waste under 40 CFR 273.80 or 260.23. ( printed page 2624)

H. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

Minnesota 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 Minnesota is not yet authorized.

I. How does today's action affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Minnesota?

Minnesota 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 or abutting the State of Minnesota, including:

a. Bois Forte Indian Reservation

b. Fond Du Lac Indian Reservation

c. Grand Portage Indian Reservation

d. Leech Lake Indian Reservation

e. Lower Sioux Indian Reservation

f. Mille Lacs Indian Reservation

g. Prairie Island Indian Reservation

h. Red Lake Indian Reservation

i. Shakopee Mdewankanton Indian Reservation

j. Upper Sioux Indian Reservation

k. White Earth Indian Reservation

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.

J. What is codification and is EPA codifying Minnesota'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. Minnesota's rules, up to and including those revised June 7, 1991, as corrected August 19, 1991, have previously been codified through incorporation by reference effective February 4, 1992 (57 FR 4162) .

K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This proposed 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

This rule authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those required by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule 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.).

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Because this rule approves 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).

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 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 as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA 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 (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 18, 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. ( printed page 2625)

12. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

Because this rule proposes authorization of pre-existing State rules 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 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

13. 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).

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).