[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 9, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57258-57260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19634]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA-RO5-RCRA-2007-0722; FRL-8478-4]
Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Michigan has applied to EPA for final authorization of the
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Michigan's application and
has preliminarily determined that these changes satisfy all
requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is
proposing to authorize the State's changes.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
November 8, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
RCRA-2007-0722 by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Mail: Ms. Judith Feigler, Michigan Regulatory Specialist, RCRA
Programs Section, Land and Chemicals Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R05-
RCRA-2007-0722. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.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 http://www.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 or any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epagov/epahome/
dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some of the
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. You may view and copy
Michigan's application from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the following
addresses: U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois,
contact: Judith Feigler (312) 886-4179; or Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, Constitution Hall, 525 W. Allegan St., Lansing,
Michigan (mailing address P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909),
contact Ronda Blayer (517) 353-9548.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Judith Feigler, Michigan
Regulatory Specialist, RCRA Programs Section, Land and Chemicals
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-4179, e-mail [email protected].
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 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 have preliminarily determined that Michigan's application to
revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory
requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant
Michigan final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program
with the changes described in the authorization application. Michigan
will have 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 Michigan, including
issuing permits, until the state is granted authorization to do so.
C. What Will Be the Effect if Michigan Is Authorized for These Changes?
If Michigan is authorized for these changes, a facility in Michigan
subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized state
requirements instead of the equivalent federal requirements in order to
comply with RCRA. Additionally, such persons will have to comply with
any applicable federal requirements, such as HSWA regulations issued by
EPA for which the state has not received authorization, and RCRA
requirements that are not supplanted by authorized state-issued
requirements. Michigan 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;
[[Page 57259]]
2. enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and
3. take enforcement actions regardless of whether the state has
taken its own actions.
This proposed action would not impose additional requirements on
the regulated community because the regulations for which Michigan
would be authorized are already effective, and would not be changed by
the act of authorization.
D. What Happens if EPA Receives Comments on This Action?
If EPA receives comments on this proposed action, we will address
those comments in a later final rule. 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 Michigan Previously Been Authorized for?
Michigan initially received final authorization on October 16,
1986, effective October 30, 1986 (51 FR 36804-36805) to implement the
RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for
changes to Michigan's program on November 24, 1989, effective January
23, 1990 (54 FR 48608); on January 24, 1991, effective June 24, 1991
(56 FR 18517); on October 1, 1993, effective November 30, 1993 (58 FR
51244); on January 13, 1995, effective January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3095);
on February 8, 1996, effective April 8, 1996 (61 FR 4742); on November
14, 1997, effective November 14, 1997 (62 FR 61775); on March 2, 1999,
effective June 1, 1999 (64 FR 10111); on July 31, 2002, effective July
31, 2002 (67 FR 49617); and on March 9, 2006, effective March 9, 2006
(71 FR 12141).
F. What Changes Are We Proposing?
On May 21, 2007, Michigan submitted a complete program revision
application seeking authorization of its changes in accordance with 40
CFR 271.21. We have preliminarily determined that Michigan's hazardous
waste management program revision satisfies all requirements necessary
to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we propose to grant
Michigan final authorization for the following program changes:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Description of Federal requirement checklist Federal Register date and Analogous state authority
\1\ page
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral Processing Secondary Materials 167D May 26, 1998, 63 FR 28556. Michigan Administrative Code,
Exclusion. R 299.9202(1)(b)(iii) and R
299.9204(1)(v), effective
December 16, 2004
NESHAP: Surface Coating of Automobiles 205 April 26, 2004, 69 FR Michigan Combined Laws,
and Light-Duty Trucks. 22601. 324.11105a(1) and (2),
effective December 29,
2006.\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Revision Checklists generally reflect changes made to the federal regulations pursuant to a particular
Federal Register notice and EPA publishes these checklists as aids to states to use for the development of
their authorization application. See EPA's RCRA State Authorization Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/state/ hazwaste/state/.
\2\ The legislation we are proposing to authorize contains a ``sunset provision'' by which the substantive
requirements of the state legislation will lapse after a period of three years unless the legislature
explicitly reauthorizes it. It is EPA's position that once program revisions are authorized, the substantive
requirements of the legislation will remain federally enforceable and our authorization of the revised program
will persist, until the state requests and receives authorization of superseding program revisions, despite
any lapse in the legal effect or enforceability of statutory authority on the state level.
G. Where Are the Revised State Rules Different From the Federal Rules?
There are no state requirements in this program revision considered
to be more stringent or broader in scope than the analogous federal
requirements.
H. Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect?
Michigan will continue to 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 Tables above after the effective date of this
authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for
HSWA requirements for which Michigan is not yet authorized.
I. How Would Authorizing Michigan for These Revisions Affect Indian
Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Michigan?
Michigan is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program
in Indian country within the state, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This
includes:
1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations
within the State of Michigan;
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, authorizing Michigan for these revisions would not
affect Indian County in Michigan. EPA would continue to implement and
administer the RCRA program in Indian country. It is EPA's long-
standing position that the term ``Indian lands'' used in past Michigan
hazardous waste approvals is synonymous with the term ``Indian
country.'' Washington Dep't of Ecology v. U.S. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465,
1467, n.1 (9th Cir. 1985). See 40 CFR 144.3 and 258.2.
J. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Michigan'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. Michigan's rules, up to
and including those revised October 19, 1991, have previously been
codified through incorporation-by-reference effective April 24, 1989
(54 FR 7421, February 21, 1989); as amended effective March 31, 1992
(57 FR 3724, January 31, 1992). We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part
272, subpart X, for the codification of Michigan's program changes
until a later date.
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
[[Page 57260]]
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 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, 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.
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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, 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: September 26, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7-19634 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P