[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17021-17024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07347]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689; FRL-9925-55-Region 5]
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
revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Michigan's
application with regards to federal requirements and is proposing to
authorize the State's program revisions.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
June 1, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
RCRA-2014-0689, by one of the following methods:
Web site: www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Mail: Judith Greenberg, Michigan Regulatory Specialist, RCRA/TSCA
Programs Section, RCRA Branch, Land and Chemicals Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
LR-8J, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R05-
RCRA-2014-0689. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at 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 www.regulations.gov
or email. The 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 email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email 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 CD-ROM or other
electronic media 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 http://www.epagov/epahome/dockets/.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some of the
information is not publicly available; e.g., CBI or other information
for which 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. You may view and
copy Michigan's application from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the
following addresses: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, contact: Judith Greenberg,
telephone (312) 886-4179; or Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality, Constitution Hall, 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan,
contact: Ronda Blayer, telephone (517) 284-6555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Greenberg, Michigan Regulatory
Specialist, RCRA/TSCA Programs Section, RCRA Branch, Land and Chemicals
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, LR-8J, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Judith Greenberg can
be reached by telephone at (312) 886-4179 or via email at
[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 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 have made a tentative decision 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 revisions 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 program revision 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 is the effect of this authorization decision?
The effect of this tentative decision, once finalized, is that a
facility in Michigan subject to RCRA would have to comply with the
authorized state requirements instead of the equivalent federal
requirements in order to comply with RCRA. 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. Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or
reports;
2. Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and
3. Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has
taken its own actions.
[[Page 17022]]
This action will not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which Michigan will be
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 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); on March 9, 2006, effective March 9, 2006 (71
FR 12141); on January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1077), effective January 7, 2008;
and on March 2, 2010, effective March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345).
F. What changes are we proposing with today's action?
On June 9, 2014, Michigan submitted its final application seeking
authorization of hazardous waste program revisions in accordance with
40 CFR 271.21. We have determined, subject to receipt of written
comments that oppose this action, that Michigan's program revisions
satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final
authorization. Therefore, we propose to grant Michigan final
authorization for the following program changes:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register date
Description of federal requirement and page (and/or RCRA Analogous state authority
and revision checklist number \1\ statutory authority)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous April 8, 2008, 73 FR R 299.9623, effective November 5, 2013.
Waste Combustors (Phase I Final 18970.
Replacement Standards and Phase II)
Amendments, Checklist 217.
F019 Exemption for Wastewater June 4, 2008, 73 FR R 299.9220, R 299.9307(6) and (7), effective
Treatment Sludges from Auto 31756. November 5, 2013.
Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating
Processes, Checklist 218.
Academic Laboratories Generator December 1, 2008, 73 FR R 299.9205(5)(j), R 299.9301(9), R 299.9313 and
Standards, Checklist 220. 72912. R 299.11003(1)(k) and (2), effective November
5, 2013.
OECD Requirements: Export Shipments January 8, 2010, 75 FR R 299.9601(2)(c), (3) and (9), effective
of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries, 1236. December 16, 2004.
Checklist 222. R 299.9401(5), effective March 17, 2008.
R 299.9301(7), R 299.9309(1), (3) and (4), R
299.9312(1) and (2), R 299.9605(1) and (4), R
299.9608(1), (4) and (8), R 299.9804(7) and
(8), and R 299.11003(1)(k), (m), (n) and (p)
and (2), effective November 5, 2013.
Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections March 16, 2010, 75 FR R 299.9302(2), effective June 21, 1994.
and Clarifications Rule, as amended, 12989; and June 4, R 299.9209(7), R 299.9311, R 299.9413 and R
Checklist 223. 2010, 75 FR 31716. 299.9803(4), effective September 11, 2000.
R 299.9619(1) and (8), R 299.9627 and R
299.9635(5) and (12), effective December 16,
2004.
R 299.9222, R 299.9310(2) and R 299.9404(1)(b),
effective March 17, 2008.
R 299.9105(l), R 299.9106(t), R 299.9202(2)(c),
R 299.9204(1)(v)(vi), R 299.9205(1)(b),
(1)(b)(ii), (2), (3)(a) and (b), R
299.9206(1)(b) and (d), (2), (2)(b) and (3), R
299.9207(1), (2), (3) and (5), R
299.9212(3)(h), R 299.9213(2) and (3), R
299.9220, R 299.9225, R 299.9304(1)(b), (2)(d)
and (6), R 299.9306(1) and (1)(b) and (d), (2),
(3), (3)(b), (4)(c), (6) and (7), R
299.9308(1), (3) and (6), R 299.9503(1)(c), R
299.9516(5), R 299.9607(1) and (4), R
299.9608(3), (6) and (8), R 299.9801(3) and
(7), R 299.9804(3), R 299.9808(3)(c), (7) and
(8), R 299.11003(1)(j), (k), (m), (n) and (u)
and (2), effective November 5, 2013.
Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts, December 17, 2010, 75 R 299.9311, R 299.9413, effective September 11,
Checklist 225. FR 78918. 2000.
R 299.9627, effective December 16, 2004.
R 299.11003(1)(n) and (2), effective November 5,
2013.
Corrections to the Academic Generator December 20, 2010, 75 R 299.9313(2) and (3), R 299.11003(1)(k) and
Standards, Checklist 226. FR 79304. (2), effective November 5, 2013.
Revisions of the Treatment Standards June 13, 2011, 75 FR R 299.9311 and R 299.9413, effective September
for Carbamate Wastes, Checklist 227. 34147. 11, 2000.
R 299.9627, effective September 11, 2004.
R 299.11003(1)(u) and (2), effective November 5,
2013.
Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections April 13, 2012, 77 FR R 299.9222, effective March 17, 2008.
and Clarifications, Checklist 228. 22229. R 299.9801(3), effective November 5, 2013.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Revision Checklists generally reflect changes to federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal
Register notice; EPA publishes these checklists as aids to states to use for development of their
authorization revision application. See EPA's RCRA State Authorization Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/laws-regs/state/index.htm.
[[Page 17023]]
Equivalent State-Initiated Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Michigan administrative rules amended State
requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 299.9102 (definition of ``construction permit'' November 5, 2013.
removed), R 299.9106(e) (definition of ``operating
license'' modified), R 299.9224, R 299.9225, R
299.9304(2)(b), R 299.9409(4), R 299.9501 (except
second sentence only of paragraph (3)(d)), R
299.9505, R 299.9524, R 299.9603, R 299.9604(2), R
299.9605, R 299.9609, R 299.9610(3), R 299.9612, R
299.9615, R 299.9616, R 299.9623, R 299.9629, R
299.9640, R 299.9707, R 299.9708, R 299.9808, and R
299.9821.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Which revised state rules are different from the federal rules?
The most significant differences between the state rules we are
proposing to authorize and federal rules are summarized below. It
should be noted that this summary does not describe every difference or
every detail regarding the differences that are described. Members of
the regulated community are advised to read the complete rules to
ensure that they understand the requirements with which they will need
to comply.
There are aspects of the Michigan program which are more stringent
than the federal program. All of these more stringent requirements are
or will become part of the federally enforceable RCRA program when
authorized by the EPA, and must be complied with in addition to the
state requirements which track the minimum federal requirements. These
more stringent requirements are found at (references are to the
Michigan Administrative Code):
Michigan does not allow containment buildings, making the state
requirements more stringent than the federal requirements at 40 CFR
262.10(f), (k)(1) and (k); 262.11(d); 262.41(b); 263.12; 40 CFR part
264 subpart DD; 40 CFR 265 subpart DD; and 40 CFR part 264 appendix I,
Tables 1 and 2.
Michigan's rules at R 299.9220 are more stringent than the federal
analog at 40 CFR 261.31 since the State's listing of F019 includes
recordkeeping requirements as a condition of the exemption of
wastewater treatment sludge generated from zinc phosphating, when zinc
phosphating is used in the automobile assembly process, while the
federal analog at 40 CFR 261.31 has separate recordkeeping requirements
for generators claiming the exemption, rather than having the
recordkeeping requirements as a condition of the exemption.
Michigan's rules at R 299.9601(1), (2), (2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f),
(g), (h) and (i); R 299.9608(1), (6) and (8); R 299.9615; and R
299.9702(1) are more stringent than the federal analogs at 40 CFR
265.56(b), 265.71, 265.72, 265.142(a), 265.174, 265.190(a), 265.193,
265.194, 265.197, 265.201, and 265.340(b)(1) since the State rules
include provisions that require compliance with standards equivalent to
40 CFR part 264 rather than 40 CFR part 265.
Michigan's rules at R 299.9601(2)(a) and R 299.9602 are more
stringent since the rules impose requirements regarding environmental
and human health standards generally.
Michigan's rules at R 299.9615(4) are more stringent since the
State rules require tank systems to comply with Michigan 1941 Act 207
standards (which govern above-ground storage tanks).
Michigan's rules at R 299.9623(9) are more stringent since the
State rules require incinerators to comply with Michigan Part 55
standards (which address air pollution).
Michigan's rules at R 299.9629(7)-(7)(c) are more stringent since
the State rules require timely notification of an exceedance of a
groundwater surface water interface standard based on acute toxicity
and established pursuant to part 201 and part 31 of act 451 and
implementation of interim measures to prevent exceedance at the
monitoring wells along with a proposal and schedule for completing
corrective action to prevent a discharge that exceeds the standard.
Michigan's rules at R 299.11002(1) and (2) are more stringent than
the federal analogs at 40 CFR 260.11(d) and (d)(1) since the State
adopts updated versions of the ``Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code.''
There are also aspects of Michigan's revised program which are
broader in scope than the federal program. State provisions that EPA
determines are broader in scope are not part of the federally
authorized program and are not federally enforceable. Michigan's
program revisions include the following rules that are broader in scope
than the federal program (references are to the Michigan Administrative
Code):
R 299.9226, R 299.9501(3)(d) (second sentence only) and R 299.9507,
as amended effective November 5, 2013.
The following Michigan administrative rules that were broader in
scope than the federal program were rescinded effective November 5,
2013 (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code):
R 299.9221 (Table 203b), R 299.9223 (Table 204b), R 299.9904, R
299.9905, R 299.9906, and R 299.11101, R 299.11102, R 299.11103, R
299.11104, R 299.11105, R 299.11106, and R 299.11107.
H. Who handles permits after final authorization takes effect?
Michigan 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 EPA issued prior to the effective date of the proposed
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 the
authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for
HSWA requirements for which Michigan is not yet authorized.
I. How does today's action 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 Country 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
[[Page 17024]]
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 a state's statutes and
regulations that comprise a 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 and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its
review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21, 2011).
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
the 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; Indians-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: January 15, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-07347 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P