Michigan: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision, 50869-50872 [2018-21883]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R05–RCRA–2017–0381; FRL–9985–
15–Region 5]
Michigan: Proposed Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Michigan has applied to EPA
for final authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed
Michigan’s application, and we have
determined that these changes satisfy all
requirements needed to quality for final
authorization, and we are proposing to
authorize the State’s changes. The EPA
seeks public comment prior to taking
final action.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be received by November 9, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R5–
RCRA–2017–0381 at
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit comments
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Judith Greenberg, Region 5, RCRA/
TSCA Programs Section, RCRA Branch,
Land and Chemicals Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, LR–8J,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, phone number:
(312) 886–4179, email:
greenberg.judith@epa.gov.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Oct 09, 2018
Jkt 247001
A. Why are revisions to state programs
necessary?
States that have received final
authorization from EPA under RCRA
Section 3006(b) of RCRA, 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’s 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 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 will be the effect if Michigan
is authorized for these changes?
If Michigan is authorized for these
changes as described in Michigan’s
authorization revision application, these
changes will become a part of the
authorized state hazardous waste
program, and therefore will be federally
enforceable. Michigan will continue to
have primary enforcement authority and
responsibility for its state hazardous
waste program. EPA would retain its
authorities under RCRA sections 3007,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50869
3008, 3013, and 7003, including its
authority to:
• Conduct inspections which may
include but are not limited to requiring
monitoring, tests, analyses and/or
reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements which
may include, but are not limited to,
suspending, terminating, modifying
and/or revoking permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless
of whether the State has taken its own
actions.
This action, if approved, will not
impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the
regulations for which Michigan is
requesting authorization are already
effective under state law, and will not
be changed by the act of authorization.
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; on March 2, 2010,
effective March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345);
and on August 28, 2015 (80 FR 52194).
F. What changes are we proposing with
today’s action?
On March 2, 2018, Michigan
submitted a final program revision
application, seeking authorization of
changes in accordance with 40 CFR
271.21. EPA proposes to make a final
determination that Michigan’s
hazardous waste program revisions are
equivalent to, consistent with, and no
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
50870
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
less stringent than the federal program,
and therefore satisfy all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for
final authorization. Therefore, we are
proposing to authorize, subject to
receipt of written comments that oppose
this action, the following program
changes:
MICHIGAN’S ANALOGS TO THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
Analogous state authority
(MAC R 299.* * *, effective April 5, 2017,
unless otherwise specified)
Description of federal requirement
Federal Register date and page
Conditional Exclusions for Solvent Contaminated
Wipes, Checklist 229.
Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Streams in Geologic Sequestration Activities,
Checklist 230.
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Rule, Checklist 231.
July 13, 2013, 78 FR 46448 .........
Revisions to the Export Provisions of the Cathode
Ray Tube (CRT) Rule, Checklist 232.
Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste Checklist
233A.
Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste Checklist
233B.
Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste Checklist
233C.
Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste Checklist
233D2.
June 26, 2014, 79 FR 26220 .......
9103(a), (b), (o), and (ff), 9304(1)(c), (2), and (6),
9409(1) and (5); 9601(2)(c), effective December
16, 2004, 9608, 9608(1), (6), (7), and (9), and
(12), and 11003(1)(l), (m) and (o).
9102(y), 9231(1)(f) and (7), and 11003(1)(i) and (j).
January 13, 2015, 80 FR 1694 ....
9202(7), (8), and (9), and 11003(1)(i).
January 13, 2015, 80 FR 1694 ....
9102(r), 9104(d), 9232, 9232(1), and 9202.
January 13, 2015, 80 FR 1694 ....
9107(bb).
January 13, 2015, 80 FR 1694 ....
Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste Checklist
233E.
Response to Vacaturs of the Comparable Fuels Rule
and the Gasification Rule, Checklist 234.
Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric
Utilities, Checklist 235.
January 13, 2015, 80 FR 1694 ....
April 8, 2015, 80 FR 18777 ..........
9103(e), (s), and (aa), 9104, 9105(b), 9107(b),
9108(h), 9202(1)(b) and (aa), 9204, 9204(1)(aa)
and (bb), 9202(6), (7), and (9), 9234(1) and (2),
9519((5)(a)(ix) and (x), and 11003(1)(i) and (j).
9107(i), 9202(1)(b)(iii) and (1)(cc), 9233(1), (2), (3),
and (4), and 11003(1)(j).
9104(a), 9204(1)(l) and (w), and 9230.
April 17, 2015, 80 FR 21302 ........
9204(2)(c), (d), and (e).
January 3, 2014, 79 FR 350 ........
February 7, 2014, 79 FR 7518 .....
9105(bb), 9107(y), 9109(pp), and 9204(1)(z) and
(2)(q).
9201(b), effective September 22, 1998, and
9204(13).
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 2—EQUIVALENT STATE-INITIATED CHANGES
State citation
MAC R 299.* * *
Effective
date(s) of
state-initiated
modification
9204(2)(h)(vii) and (x) ...........
April 5, 2017 ..
9206(3)(q) .............................
4/5/2017 .........
9225 ......................................
4/5/2017 .........
9226 ......................................
9506, 9621, and 11001 ........
9608(1) ..................................
4/5/2017 .........
4/5/2017 .........
4/5/2017 .........
G. Which revised state rules are
different from the federal rules?
Michigan has excluded the nondelegable federal requirements at 40
CFR 268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), 268.44, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Oct 09, 2018
Jkt 247001
Description of modification
A. The phrase ‘‘including waste scrap leather from automotive seat design activities’’ has been
added to paragraph (vii) to clarify that such materials are included in the waste scrap leather
from the leather tanning industry, the shoe manufacturing industry, and other leather product
manufacturing industries category.
A. Paragraph (x) has been added to include boiler chemical cleaning waste from electric utility
boiler maintenance using water and tetra ammonium ethylene diamine tetra acetic aced
(a.k.a. ammoniated EDTA) among the specific wastes that, if they meet the standards in subdivision (h), are not hazardous wastes for the purposes for Part 111, Hazardous Waste Management, of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451,
as amended, and its rules.
The items considered textiles have been modified to reflect the new federal term ‘‘wipes’’ that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defined as part of the Solvent-Contaminated
Wipes Rule.
Table 205b has been modified to remove duplicate entry for nitrobenzene and add back in 1,3Pentadiene, which is part of the Part 111 rules, but was inadvertently deleted from the printed
copies of the rules.
Certain state ‘‘U’’ wastes have been deleted from Table 205c.
These rules have been revised to reflect updates to the ASTM standards.
This subrule has been revised to clarify that if a facility receives a hazardous waste shipment
from a conditionally exempt small quantity generator that is accompanied by a manifest, the
facility is not required to submit a copy of that manifest to the director or his or her designee.
270.3. EPA will continue to implement
those requirements.
Michigan has proposed additions to
its Universal Wastes that will add
Antifreeze, Aerosol cans and Paint
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Wastes that are not already regulated as
hazardous waste. As such they are not
regulated under the RCRA subtitle C
program by U.S. EPA, though Michigan
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
plans to regulate them under State law
if those State additions go into effect.
Michigan’s program is broader in
scope than the federal program in its
adoption of 40 CFR 260.43 (2015) and
40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) (2015) at MAC R
299.9232 and R 299.9204(1)(bb). Both of
these regulations include provisions
from the 2015 Definition of Solid Waste
(DSW) Rule that have been vacated and
replaced with the less stringent
requirements of 40 CFR 260.43 (2008)
and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) (2008)
from the 2008 DSW Rule.’’
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.
H. Who handles permits after the 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 issues
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.
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:
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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Oct 09, 2018
Jkt 247001
1. Executive Order 12866: 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 proposed 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 proposed 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
proposed 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 proposed 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 (2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50871
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999) does not apply to this
proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed
rule.
10. Executive Order 12988
As required by Section 3 of Executive
Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7,
1996), in issuing this proposed rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
50872
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
11. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation
of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2018–0649; FRL–9984–67]
EPA has complied with Executive
Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18,
1988) by examining the takings
implications of this action in
accordance with the Attorney General’s
Supplemental Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings issued under the
executive order.
Significant New Use Rules on Certain
Chemical Substances
12. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations
Because this rulemaking 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 proposed rule is not subject
to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
13. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not an Executive Order
13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017)
regulatory action because actions such
as today’s final authorization of
Michigan’s revised hazardous waste
management program under RCRA are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
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.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6926,
and 6939g.
Dated: September 18, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018–21883 Filed 10–9–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Oct 09, 2018
Jkt 247001
40 CFR Part 721
RIN 2070–AB27
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing significant
new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 28
chemical substances which were the
subject of premanufacture notices
(PMNs). The chemical substances are
subject to Orders issued by EPA
pursuant to section 5(e) of TSCA. This
action would require persons who
intend to manufacture (defined by
statute to include import) or process any
of these 28 chemical substances for an
activity that is designated as a
significant new use by this rule to notify
EPA at least 90 days before commencing
that activity. The required notification
initiates EPA’s evaluation of the
intended use within the applicable
review period. Persons may not
commence manufacture or processing
for the significant new use until EPA
has conducted a review of the notice,
made an appropriate determination on
the notice, and has taken such actions
as are required with that determination.
In addition to this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action
as a direct final rule elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 9, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2018–0649, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: Document Control Office
(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical information contact:
Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001;
telephone number: (202) 564–9232;
email address: moss.kenneth@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave. Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.
In
addition to this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, EPA is issuing the action
as a direct final rule elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register. For further
information about the proposed
significant new use rules, please see the
information provided in the direct final
action, with the same title, that is
located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
section of this issue of the Federal
Register.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 1, 2018.
Jeffery T. Morris,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2018–21870 Filed 10–9–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 555, 571 and 591
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0092]
RIN 2127–AL99
Pilot Program for Collaborative
Research on Motor Vehicles With High
or Full Driving Automation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM).
AGENCY:
NHTSA is seeking public
comment on matters related to the nearterm and long-term challenges of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50869-50872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21883]
[[Page 50869]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA-R05-RCRA-2017-0381; FRL-9985-15-Region 5]
Michigan: Proposed 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 changes
to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Michigan's application, and we
have determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to
quality for final authorization, and we are proposing to authorize the
State's changes. The EPA seeks public comment prior to taking final
action.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by November 9,
2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R5-
RCRA-2017-0381 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit comments electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Greenberg, Region 5, RCRA/TSCA
Programs Section, RCRA Branch, Land and Chemicals Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, LR-8J,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, phone number: (312) 886-4179, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?
States that have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
Section 3006(b) of RCRA, 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's 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 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 will be the effect if Michigan is authorized for these changes?
If Michigan is authorized for these changes as described in
Michigan's authorization revision application, these changes will
become a part of the authorized state hazardous waste program, and
therefore will be federally enforceable. Michigan will continue to have
primary enforcement authority and responsibility for its state
hazardous waste program. EPA would retain its authorities under RCRA
sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
Conduct inspections which may include but are not limited
to requiring monitoring, tests, analyses and/or reports;
Enforce RCRA requirements which may include, but are not
limited to, suspending, terminating, modifying and/or revoking permits;
and
Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
This action, if approved, will not impose additional requirements
on the regulated community because the regulations for which Michigan
is requesting authorization are already effective under state law, and
will not be changed by the act of authorization.
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;
on March 2, 2010, effective March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345); and on August
28, 2015 (80 FR 52194).
F. What changes are we proposing with today's action?
On March 2, 2018, Michigan submitted a final program revision
application, seeking authorization of changes in accordance with 40 CFR
271.21. EPA proposes to make a final determination that Michigan's
hazardous waste program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with,
and no
[[Page 50870]]
less stringent than the federal program, and therefore satisfy all of
the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization.
Therefore, we are proposing to authorize, subject to receipt of written
comments that oppose this action, the following program changes:
Michigan's Analogs to the Federal Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analogous state
authority (MAC R
Description of federal Federal Register 299.* * *, effective
requirement date and page April 5, 2017, unless
otherwise specified)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditional Exclusions for July 13, 2013, 78 9105(bb), 9107(y),
Solvent Contaminated Wipes, FR 46448. 9109(pp), and
Checklist 229. 9204(1)(z) and
(2)(q).
Conditional Exclusion for January 3, 2014, 9201(b), effective
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Streams 79 FR 350. September 22, 1998,
in Geologic Sequestration and 9204(13).
Activities, Checklist 230.
Hazardous Waste Electronic February 7, 2014, 9103(a), (b), (o),
Manifest Rule, Checklist 231. 79 FR 7518. and (ff),
9304(1)(c), (2), and
(6), 9409(1) and
(5); 9601(2)(c),
effective December
16, 2004, 9608,
9608(1), (6), (7),
and (9), and (12),
and 11003(1)(l), (m)
and (o).
Revisions to the Export June 26, 2014, 79 9102(y), 9231(1)(f)
Provisions of the Cathode Ray FR 26220. and (7), and
Tube (CRT) Rule, Checklist 11003(1)(i) and (j).
232.
Revisions to the Definition of January 13, 2015, 9202(7), (8), and
Solid Waste Checklist 233A. 80 FR 1694. (9), and
11003(1)(i).
Revisions to the Definition of January 13, 2015, 9102(r), 9104(d),
Solid Waste Checklist 233B. 80 FR 1694. 9232, 9232(1), and
9202.
Revisions to the Definition of January 13, 2015, 9107(bb).
Solid Waste Checklist 233C. 80 FR 1694.
Revisions to the Definition of January 13, 2015, 9103(e), (s), and
Solid Waste Checklist 233D2. 80 FR 1694. (aa), 9104, 9105(b),
9107(b), 9108(h),
9202(1)(b) and (aa),
9204, 9204(1)(aa)
and (bb), 9202(6),
(7), and (9),
9234(1) and (2),
9519((5)(a)(ix) and
(x), and 11003(1)(i)
and (j).
Revisions to the Definition of January 13, 2015, 9107(i),
Solid Waste Checklist 233E. 80 FR 1694. 9202(1)(b)(iii) and
(1)(cc), 9233(1),
(2), (3), and (4),
and 11003(1)(j).
Response to Vacaturs of the April 8, 2015, 80 9104(a), 9204(1)(l)
Comparable Fuels Rule and the FR 18777. and (w), and 9230.
Gasification Rule, Checklist
234.
Disposal of Coal Combustion April 17, 2015, 9204(2)(c), (d), and
Residuals from Electric 80 FR 21302. (e).
Utilities, Checklist 235.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Equivalent State-Initiated Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date(s) of
State citation MAC R 299.* * * state-initiated Description of modification
modification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9204(2)(h)(vii) and (x)................. April 5, 2017.......... A. The phrase ``including waste scrap leather
from automotive seat design activities'' has
been added to paragraph (vii) to clarify
that such materials are included in the
waste scrap leather from the leather tanning
industry, the shoe manufacturing industry,
and other leather product manufacturing
industries category.
A. Paragraph (x) has been added to include
boiler chemical cleaning waste from electric
utility boiler maintenance using water and
tetra ammonium ethylene diamine tetra acetic
aced (a.k.a. ammoniated EDTA) among the
specific wastes that, if they meet the
standards in subdivision (h), are not
hazardous wastes for the purposes for Part
111, Hazardous Waste Management, of
Michigan's Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451,
as amended, and its rules.
9206(3)(q).............................. 4/5/2017............... The items considered textiles have been
modified to reflect the new federal term
``wipes'' that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency defined as part of the
Solvent-Contaminated Wipes Rule.
9225.................................... 4/5/2017............... Table 205b has been modified to remove
duplicate entry for nitrobenzene and add
back in 1,3-Pentadiene, which is part of the
Part 111 rules, but was inadvertently
deleted from the printed copies of the
rules.
9226.................................... 4/5/2017............... Certain state ``U'' wastes have been deleted
from Table 205c.
9506, 9621, and 11001................... 4/5/2017............... These rules have been revised to reflect
updates to the ASTM standards.
9608(1)................................. 4/5/2017............... This subrule has been revised to clarify that
if a facility receives a hazardous waste
shipment from a conditionally exempt small
quantity generator that is accompanied by a
manifest, the facility is not required to
submit a copy of that manifest to the
director or his or her designee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Which revised state rules are different from the federal rules?
Michigan 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.
Michigan has proposed additions to its Universal Wastes that will
add Antifreeze, Aerosol cans and Paint Wastes that are not already
regulated as hazardous waste. As such they are not regulated under the
RCRA subtitle C program by U.S. EPA, though Michigan
[[Page 50871]]
plans to regulate them under State law if those State additions go into
effect.
Michigan's program is broader in scope than the federal program in
its adoption of 40 CFR 260.43 (2015) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) (2015) at
MAC R 299.9232 and R 299.9204(1)(bb). Both of these regulations include
provisions from the 2015 Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) Rule that have
been vacated and replaced with the less stringent requirements of 40
CFR 260.43 (2008) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) (2008) from the 2008
DSW Rule.''
H. Who handles permits after the 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 issues 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 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 12866: 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538).
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) does not apply
to this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule.
10. Executive Order 12988
As required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to
[[Page 50872]]
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 this action 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 rulemaking 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 proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
13. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February
3, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as today's final
authorization of Michigan's revised hazardous waste management program
under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
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: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6926, and 6939g.
Dated: September 18, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-21883 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P