Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision, 1077-1080 [E8-16]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and,
when regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity). The
Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ requiring review by
OMB unless OMB waives such review,
as any regulatory action that is likely to
result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
The economic, interagency,
budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this final rule have been
examined and it has been determined
that it is not a significant regulatory
action under the Executive Order
because this rule merely reflects a
statutory amendment by removing the
regulatory requirement that had
mirrored the language of the former
statutory requirement.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Regulatory Flexibility Act
18:28 Jan 04, 2008
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance numbers and titles for the
programs affected by this rule are
64.120, Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’
Educational Assistance; 64.124, AllVolunteer Force Educational Assistance;
and 64.117, Survivors and Dependents
Educational Assistance.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 21
Administrative practice and
procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights,
Claims, Colleges and universities,
Conflict of interests, Education,
Employment, Grant programs—
education, Grant programs—veterans,
Health care, Loan programs—education,
Loan programs—veterans, Manpower
training programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Schools,
Travel and transportation expenses,
Veterans, Vocational education,
Vocational rehabilitation.
Approved: November 16, 2007.
Gordon H. Mansfield,
Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Department of Veterans
Affairs amends 38 CFR part 21 (subpart
D) as follows:
I
PART 21—[AMENDED]
The initial and final regulatory
flexibility analysis requirements of
sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, are
not applicable to this rule because a
notice of proposed rulemaking is not
required for this rule. Even so, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby
certifies that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as
they are defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Any impact on the
educational institutions affected by the
rule that may be small entities would be
minor for at least the reason that the
rule merely removes from the
regulations a requirement for reporting
information that would still be required
to be maintained by such educational
institutions. Under 38 U.S.C. 3675(b),
educational institutions offering
VerDate Aug<31>2005
accredited courses are still required to
maintain written records of credit for
prior education given to students using
VA education benefits, with the training
period shortened proportionately. This
final rule is therefore also exempt
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) from the
regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Jkt 214001
Subpart D—Administration of
Educational Assistance Programs
1. The authority citation for part 21,
subpart D continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2141 note, ch. 1606;
38 U.S.C. 501(a), chs. 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, and
as noted in specific sections.
§ 21.4253
[Amended]
2. Amend § 21.4253(d)(3) by removing
‘‘, and the person and the Department of
Veterans Affairs so notified’’.
I
[FR Doc. E7–25658 Filed 1–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
PO 00000
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[Docket No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2007–0722;
FRL–8514–1]
Michigan: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is granting Michigan
final authorization of the changes to its
hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). EPA published a proposed
rule on October 9, 2007 at 72 FR 57258
and provided for public comment. The
public comment period ended on
November 8, 2007. We received no
comments. No further opportunity for
comment will be provided. EPA has
determined that these changes satisfy all
requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization and is authorizing the
State’s changes through this final action.
DATES: The final authorization will be
effective on January 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R05–RCRA–
2007–0722. All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site 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 https://
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: Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality,
Waste and Hazardous Materials
Division, Constitution Hall—Atrium
North, 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing,
Michigan (mailing address P.O. Box
30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909),
contact Ronda Blayer, (517) 353–9548;
and at EPA Region 5, contact Judy
Greenberg at the following address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy
Greenberg, Michigan Regulatory
Specialist, Land and Chemicals Division
(LR–8J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886–4179, e-mail:
Greenberg.Judith@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1077
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
1078
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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 conclude that Michigan’s
application to revise its authorized
program meets all of the statutory and
regulatory requirements established by
RCRA. Therefore, we are granting
Michigan final authorization to operate
its hazardous waste program with the
changes described in the authorization
application. Michigan 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 Michigan, including
issuing permits, until the State is
granted authorization to do so.
to public comment. The Agency
received no comments on this proposal.
EPA has found Michigan’s RCRA
program to be satisfactory.
C. What is the effect of today’s
authorization decision?
The effect of this decision is that 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. 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;
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 action does not impose
additional requirements on the
regulated community because the
regulations for which Michigan is being
authorized by today’s action are already
effective and are not changed by today’s
action.
Michigan initially received final
authorization on October 16, 1986,
effective October 30, 1986 (51 FR
36804), 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 April 23, 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 61175); 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).
D. Proposed Rule
On October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57258),
EPA published a proposed rule. In that
rule we proposed granting authorization
of changes to Michigan’s hazardous
waste program and opened our decision
Revision
checklist 1
Description of Federal requirement
E. What has Michigan previously been
authorized for?
F. What Changes are we authorizing
with today’s action?
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 determined that
Michigan’s hazardous waste program
revision satisfies all of the requirements
necessary to qualify for final
authorization. Therefore, we are
granting Michigan final authorization
for the following program changes:
Federal Register
date and page
Analogous State authority
Michigan Administrative Code, R 299.9202(1)(b)(iii)
and R 299.9204(1)(v), effective December 16,
2004.
Michigan Combined Laws, 324.11105a(1) and (2),
effective December 29, 2006. 2
Mineral Processing Secondary Materials Exclusion
167D
May 26, 1998, 63 FR
28556.
NESHAP: Surface Coating of Automobiles and
Light-Duty Trucks.
205
April 26, 2004, 69 FR
22601.
1 Revision Checklists generally reflect changes made 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 https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/state/.
2 The legislation we are authorizing 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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
G. Where are the revised state rules
different from the Federal rules?
H. Who handles permits after the
authorization takes effect?
These program revisions do not
contain any State requirements that are
considered to be more stringent or
broader in scope than the analogous
Federal requirements.
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 we issued
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:28 Jan 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
prior to the effective date of this
authorization until they expire or are
terminated. EPA 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
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
EPA will 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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
K. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This 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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:28 Jan 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
1079
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.).
2001), because it is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866.
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.
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.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule approves preexisting 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
9. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
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 authorizes preexisting 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).
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
1080
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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: December 21, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E8–16 Filed 1–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 07–51; FCC 07–189]
Exclusive Service Contracts for
Provision of Video Services in Multiple
Dwelling Units and Other Real Estate
Developments
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Summary of the Report and Order
The Commission’s action
concerns ‘‘Multiple Dwelling Units’’
such as apartment or condominium
buildings and centrally managed
residential real estate developments
(collectively, ‘‘MDUs’’); cable operators
that provide video service in MDUs; and
agreements that grant them the
exclusive right to provide video
programming service in an MDU. The
Commission finds that such agreements,
in granting exclusivity, harm
competition, the provision of
programming to MDU residents, and
broadband deployment. Thus, the
Commission prohibits the enforcement
of existing exclusivity clauses and the
execution of new ones by cable
operators (and a few others). This
prohibition will materially advance the
Communications Act’s goals of
enhancing competition, consumer
choice in video service and
programming, and broadband
deployment.
SUMMARY:
Effective March 7, 2008.
Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information on this
proceeding, please contact John W.
DATES:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:28 Jan 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
Berresford, (202) 418–1886, or Holly
Saurer, (202) 418–7283, both of the
Policy Division, Media Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Federal
Communications Commission’s Report
and Order in MB Docket No. 07–51, FCC
07–189, adopted October 31, 2007, and
released November 13, 2007. The full
text of this document is available for
public inspection and copying during
regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC
20554. These documents will also be
available via ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/
or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text
may be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554. To request this
document in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail
to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
1. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(‘‘Notice’’) in this proceeding solicited
comment on the need to regulate
contracts containing clauses granting
one multichannel video programming
distributor (an ‘‘MVPD’’) exclusive
access for the provision of video
services (‘‘exclusivity clauses’’) to
multiple dwelling units (‘‘MDUs’’) and
other real estate developments.
Exclusive Service Contracts for
Provision of Video Services in Multiple
Dwelling Units & Other Real Estate
Developments, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 5935 (2007).
Approximately 30 percent of Americans
live in MDUs, and their numbers are
growing. In this Report and Order, we
find that contractual agreements
granting such exclusivity to cable
operators harm competition and
broadband deployment and that any
benefits to consumers are outweighed
by the harms of such clauses.
Accordingly, we conclude that such
clauses are proscribed by section 628 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended. That section prohibits unfair
methods of competition that have the
purpose or effect of hindering
significantly or preventing MVPDs from
providing ‘‘satellite cable’’ and/or
‘‘satellite broadcast’’ programming to
subscribers and consumers. Thus, in
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
this Order we prohibit the enforcement
of existing exclusivity clauses and the
execution of new ones by cable
operators and others subject to the
relevant statutory provisions. This
prohibition will materially advance the
Act’s goals of enhancing competition
and broadband deployment.
2. The record in this proceeding does
not contain much information regarding
the use of exclusivity clauses by
providers of Direct Broadcast Satellite
(‘‘DBS’’) or other MVPDs that are not
cable operators subject to section 628 of
the Act. In the interests of developing a
fuller record, and in the interests of
regulatory parity, we also issue a
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(‘‘Further Notice’’) concerning MVPDs
not subject to section 628. In this
Further Notice, we also seek comment
on whether the Commission should
prohibit exclusive marketing and bulk
billing arrangements.
I. Background
3. This section reviews the history of
this proceeding and makes several
important findings of fact. Among these
findings are that a large and growing
number of Americans live in MDUs and
that a significant number of those MDUs
are subject to exclusivity clauses. The
beneficiaries of most of those clauses are
incumbent cable operators. Although
Commission rules ensure that many
residents of MDUs and other real estate
developments may receive satellitebased video service, exclusivity clauses
protect cable operators from
competition in MDUs from new entrants
into the MVPD business, chiefly
incumbent local exchange carriers
(‘‘LECs’’) and other wire-based MVPDs
that bring satellite cable and satellite
broadcast programming to their
subscribers. We also find that the entry
of incumbent LECs into the MVPD
business has led incumbent cable
operators to increase their use of
exclusivity clauses in order to bar or
deter the new entrants.
4. These practices are reached
primarily by our authority under section
628. That section, in brief, makes it
unlawful for cable operators to engage
in certain unfair acts and methods of
competition. Specifically, section 628(b)
prohibits cable operators from engaging
in unfair practices that have the purpose
or effect of hindering significantly or
preventing their competitors from
providing satellite cable programming
or satellite broadcast programming to
subscribers or consumers. Such video
programming is made for broadcast or
cable systems and is delivered by
satellite to MVPDs, who in turn deliver
it to their subscribers. Section 628
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1077-1080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[Docket No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2007-0722; FRL-8514-1]
Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is granting Michigan final authorization of the changes to
its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA published a proposed rule on October 9, 2007
at 72 FR 57258 and provided for public comment. The public comment
period ended on November 8, 2007. We received no comments. No further
opportunity for comment will be provided. EPA has determined that these
changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization and is authorizing the State's changes through this final
action.
DATES: The final authorization will be effective on January 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2007-0722. All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 https://
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: Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, Waste and Hazardous Materials
Division, Constitution Hall--Atrium North, 525 West Allegan Street,
Lansing, Michigan (mailing address P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan
48909), contact Ronda Blayer, (517) 353-9548; and at EPA Region 5,
contact Judy Greenberg at the following address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Greenberg, Michigan Regulatory
Specialist, Land and Chemicals Division (LR-8J), EPA Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-4179, e-mail:
Greenberg.Judith@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 1078]]
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 conclude that Michigan's application to revise its authorized
program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Therefore, we are granting Michigan final
authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes
described in the authorization application. Michigan 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 Michigan, including issuing permits,
until the State is granted authorization to do so.
C. What is the effect of today's authorization decision?
The effect of this decision is that 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. 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;
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 action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which Michigan is being
authorized by today's action are already effective and are not changed
by today's action.
D. Proposed Rule
On October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57258), EPA published a proposed rule. In
that rule we proposed granting authorization of changes to Michigan's
hazardous waste program and opened our decision to public comment. The
Agency received no comments on this proposal. EPA has found Michigan's
RCRA program to be satisfactory.
E. What has Michigan previously been authorized for?
Michigan initially received final authorization on October 16,
1986, effective October 30, 1986 (51 FR 36804), 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 April 23, 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 61175); 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 authorizing with today's action?
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 determined that Michigan's hazardous waste program
revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for
final authorization. Therefore, we are granting Michigan final
authorization for the following program changes:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision
Description of Federal requirement checklist Federal Register date and page Analogous State authority
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral Processing Secondary 167D May 26, 1998, 63 FR 28556........ Michigan Administrative
Materials Exclusion. Code, R
299.9202(1)(b)(iii) and R
299.9204(1)(v), effective
December 16, 2004.
NESHAP: Surface Coating of 205 April 26, 2004, 69 FR 22601...... Michigan Combined Laws,
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks. 324.11105a(1) and (2),
effective December 29,
2006. \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Revision Checklists generally reflect changes made 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 https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/
state/.
\2\ The legislation we are authorizing 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?
These program revisions do not contain any State requirements that
are 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 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. EPA 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
[[Page 1079]]
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.
EPA will 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 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
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 authorizes 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).
[[Page 1080]]
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: December 21, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E8-16 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P