Michigan: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions, 70790-70793 [2021-26829]
Download as PDF
70790
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 236 / Monday, December 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Dated: December 7, 2021.
Matthew G. Olsen,
Assistant Attorney General, National Security
Division.
[FR Doc. 2021–26936 Filed 12–10–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–PF–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R05–RCRA–2021–0389; FRL–9191–
01–R5]
Michigan: Proposed Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Michigan has applied to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for final authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), as amended. EPA has
reviewed Michigan’s application and
has determined that these changes
satisfy all requirements needed to
qualify for final authorization.
Therefore, we are proposing to authorize
the State’s changes. EPA seeks public
comment prior to taking final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 27, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: Mullins.Angela@epa.gov.
• Instructions: EPA must receive your
comments by January 27, 2022. Direct
your comments to Docket ID Number
EPA–R05–RCRA–2021–0389.
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 federal
www.regulations.gov website 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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 10, 2021
Jkt 256001
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
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. (For additional information
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov,
index. Although listed in the index,
some 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
www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angela Mullins, RCRA C&D Section,
Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, LL–17J, Chicago, IL 60604.
Angela Mullins can be reached by
telephone at (312) 886–4237 or via
email at mullins.angela@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
regulations that EPA promulgates
pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
take effect in authorized states at the
same time that they take effect in
unauthorized states. Thus, EPA will
implement those requirements and
prohibitions in Michigan including the
issuance of new permits implementing
those requirements, until the State is
granted authorization to do so.
A. Why are revisions to state programs
necessary?
If Michigan is authorized for the
changes described in Michigan’s
authorization application, these changes
will become part of the authorized State
hazardous waste program and will
therefore be federally enforceable.
Michigan will continue to have primary
enforcement authority and
responsibility for its State hazardous
waste program. EPA would maintain its
authorities under RCRA sections 3007,
3008, 3013, and 7003, including its
authority to:
• Conduct inspections, and require
monitoring, tests, analyses and reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements,
including authorized State program
requirements, and suspend or revoke
permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless
of whether the State has taken its own
actions.
States that 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 268, 270, 273, and 279.
New Federal requirements and
prohibitions imposed by Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. What decisions has EPA made in this
rule?
On April 8, 2021, Michigan submitted
a complete program revision application
seeking authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program that
correspond to certain Federal rules
promulgated between January 13, 2015
and January 3, 2018 (also known as
RCRA Clusters XXV and XXVI). EPA
concludes that Michigan’s application
to revise its authorized program meets
all of the statutory and regulatory
requirements established under RCRA,
as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42
U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271.
Therefore, EPA proposes to grant
Michigan final authorization to operate
its hazardous waste program with the
changes described in the authorization
application, and as outlined below in
Section G of this document.
Michigan has responsibility for
permitting treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities 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 HSWA, as discussed
above.
C. What is the effect of this proposed
authorization decision?
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 236 / Monday, December 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules
This action will not impose additional
requirements on the regulated
community because the regulations
which EPA is proposing to authorize
Michigan are already effective under
state law and are not changed by this
proposed action.
D. What happens if EPA receives
comments that oppose this action?
If EPA receives comments on this
proposed action, we will address all
such comments in a later final rule. You
may not have another opportunity to
comment. If you want to comment on
this authorization, you should 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); on
August 28, 2015 (80 FR 52194), effective
70791
August 28, 2015; and on June 6, 2019
(84 FR 26359), effective June 6, 2019.
F. What changes are we proposing with
this action?
On April 8, 2021, Michigan submitted
a final complete program revision
application, seeking authorization of
changes to its hazardous waste
management program in accordance
with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA proposes to
determine, subject to receipt of written
comments that oppose this action, that
Michigan’s hazardous waste program
revisions are equivalent to, consistent
with, and no less stringent than the
Federal program, and therefore satisfy
all of the requirements necessary to
qualify for final authorization.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to
authorize Michigan for the following
program changes:
TABLE 1—AUTHORIZED MICHIGAN PROGRAM CHANGES
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Description of Federal requirement and revision
checklist number 1
Federal Register date and page
(and/or RCRA statutory authority)
Analogous state authority
(MAC R 299.***, effective August 3, 2020, unless
otherwise specified)
Changes affecting all non-waste determinations and
variances, Checklist 233A–2.
Legitimacy-related provisions, including prohibition of
sham recycling, and definitions of legitimacy and
contained, checklist 233B–2.
2008 DSW exclusions and non-waste determinations, including revisions from 2015 DSW final rule
and 2018 DSW final rule, checklist 233D2–2 2.
January 13, 2015, 80 FR 1694;
May 30, 2018, 83 FR 24664.
January 13, 2015, 80 FR 1694;
May 30, 2018, 83 FR 24664.
9202(7), 11003(1), 9202(8), effective April 5, 2017.
January 13, 2015, 80 FR 1694;
May 30, 2018, 83 FR 24664.
Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste, Checklist
236.
November 28, 2016, 81 FR 85696
Hazardous Waste Generator Rule Improvements
Checklist 237.
November 28, 2016, 81 FR 85730
Confidentiality Determinations for Hazardous Waste
Export and Import Documents, Checklist 238.
Hazardous Waste Electric Manifest User Fee Rule,
Checklist 239.
December 26, 2017 82 FR 60894
92013(v), 9104(e) and (bb), 9105(b), 9108(h),
9202(1), (6) and (7), 11003(1), 9107 (b), 9204(1),
9201(1), 9234(1), and 9519(5), effective April 5,
2017.
9101(s), 9103(a), 9107(c), 11001(7), 9204(4) and
(6), 9206(3) and (6), 9231(1) and (7), 11003(1)
and (2), 9301(7), 9308(7), 9312(3), 9309, 9310,
9314(1) and (2), 9401(5), 9409(1) and (5),
9605(1) and (4), 9608(1), (4), and (12), 9601(3)
and (9), 9803(2), 9804(7)–(11), 9228(4), (5), (6),
(7), (10) and (11).
9101(o), 9102(d) and (n), 9105(h), (dd), 9107(z),
9109(ii), 11002, 9201, 9107(r), 9205, 9205(1),
9206(1)(c), 9214(2)–(4), 9234(1) and (2),
11003(1) and (2), 9104(s), 9301(1), (2), (3), (7),
(9), and (10), 9302(1), (2), (3), and (7), 9311(1)
and (7), 9303(1)–(8), 9304(1)—(3), 9305(1)—(4),
9306(1)—(5), 9307(1)—(7), 9308(1)—(7), 9309,
9310(1) and (2), 9311(1)–(3) and (5)–(7),
9312(1)–(3) and (7), 9315(1)–(3), 9316(1)–(7),
9103, 9106, 9109, 9401(1), 9404(1), 9503(1)(a)
and (b), 9605(1) and (4), 9608(3), 9610(1),
9614(1) and (2), 9615(1) and (7), 9631(1) and (2),
9634(1) and (2), 9503(1)(a) and (b), 9601(1), (2),
(3), and (9), 9804, 9822(13), 9313(1) and (2),
9413(1) and (2), 9627(1) and (2), 9519, 9229(3),
9229(2), 9809(1)(a).
9231(1) and (7), 11103(1) and (2), 9314(1)–(3).
1 Revision Checklists generally reflect changes to
Federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal
Register document; EPA publishes these checklists
as aids to states to use for development of their
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 10, 2021
Jkt 256001
January 3, 2018, 83 FR 420 .........
9102(t), 9104(d), 9232(1), 9232(2), 9202(1), and
9107(v), effective April 5, 2017.
9601(3) and (9), 9608(1), (9), (14), and (15),
11003(1) and (2), 9309(1) and (6), 9409(1) and
(5), 9634(1) and (2).
authorization revision application. See EPA’s RCRA
State Authorization website at https://www.epa.gov/
epawaste/laws-regs/state/index.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2 Original rule authorized on June 6, 2019. Court
decisions from September 2018 were not included
in original authorization. Checklist 233D2 is being
resubmitted to include impacted sections.
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
70792
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 236 / Monday, December 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—EQUIVALENT STATE-INITIATED CHANGES
Effective date of
amended State
requirement
Michigan administrative rules
(MAC R 299.*** unless otherwise specified)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9103(i) (definition of ‘‘EPA Acknowledgement of Consent (AOC)’’, 9106(s) (definition of ‘‘Primary exporter’’), 9228, 9314,
9405(2)(f) and (3)(d), 9511(5)(b), 9608(4).
G. Which revised state rules are
different from the Federal rules?
When revised state rules differ from
the Federal rules in the RCRA state
authorization process, EPA determines
whether the state rules are equivalent to,
more stringent than, or broader in scope
than the Federal program. Pursuant to
Section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929,
state programs may contain
requirements that are more stringent
than the Federal regulations. Such more
stringent requirements can be federally
authorized and, once authorized,
become federally enforceable. Although
the statute does not prevent states from
adopting regulations that are broader in
scope than the Federal program, states
cannot receive Federal authorization for
such regulations, and they are not
federally enforceable.
EPA considers the following Michigan
requirements to be more stringent than
the Federal requirements:
Michigan does not adopt standardized
permits, making the State requirements
more stringent than the Federal
requirement at 40 CFR 267.71(a)(4)–
(6)(i) and (ii), (c), (d); and 267.1(a).
Michigan does not allow containment
buildings, making its State requirements
more stringent than the Federal
requirements at 40 CFR
262.16(b)(4)(iii)(B), (5)(i) and (ii)(A)
through (C), (6)(i) and (ii)(A) through
(D), (7), and (8)(i) through (vi);
262.17(a)(3)(iii)(A) and (B), (4)(i) and
(ii)(A) through (C), (5)(i)(B) and (ii)(B),
(8)(i)(B), (c)(4)(i)(C)(1)and (2), and
(iv)(B).
Michigan’s rules at R
299.9304(1)(e)(xii)(B), R
299.9305(1)(e)(B), R
299.9316(2)(e)(i)(B)(2), R
299.9316(2)(e)(i)(B)(2), R
299.9316(3)(e)(i) (B)(2), and R
299.9316(3)(e) (ii)(B) (2) are more
stringent than the Federal analogs at 40
CFR 262.14(a)(5)(viii)(B)(2),
232.15(a)(5)(ii), 262.232(a)(4)(i)(B),
262.232(a)(4)(ii)(B), 262.232(b)(4)(i) (B),
262.232(b)(4)(ii) (B), and 268.50(a)(1)
since the State’s rulings include the
requirement of labeling each container
with a description of the waste or the
hazardous waste number while the
Federal rule only requires an indication
of the hazards of the contents. These
requirements would become part of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 10, 2021
Jkt 256001
Michigan’s authorized program and
would be federally enforceable.
EPA also considers the following
State requirements go beyond the scope
of the Federal program:
Michigan’s rules at R 299.9214(3) and
(4) are broader in scope than the Federal
analog at 40 CFR 261.33(f) with respect
to the chemicals listed in table 205c that
are not included in Federal regulations.
This expands the number of chemicals
listed as toxic wastes by the rule.
Broader-in-scope requirements do not
become part of the authorized program
and EPA cannot enforce them. Although
regulated entities must comply with
these requirements in accordance with
State law, they are not RCRA
requirements.
H. Who handles permits after final
authorization takes effect?
When 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 issued prior to the effective date of
the proposed 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 Table 1after the effective date
of the final authorization. EPA will
continue to implement and issue
permits for HSWA requirements for
which Michigan is not yet authorized.
EPA has the authority to enforce stateissued permits after the State is
authorized.
I. How does this 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 or abutting 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, this action has no effect on
Indian country. EPA retains jurisdiction
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
February 21, 2021.
over Indian country and will continue
to implement and administer the RCRA
program on these lands. It is EPA’s longstanding 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
citations and references to a state’s
statutes and regulations that comprise
the state’s authorized hazardous waste
program into the Code of Federal
Regulations. EPA does this by adding
those citations and references to the
authorized state rules in 40 CFR part
272. EPA previously codified
Michigan’s rules up to and including
those revised October 19, 1991 effective
April 24, 1989 (54 FR 7421, February
21, 1989); as amended effective March
31, 1992 (57 FR 3724, January 31, 1992).
EPA is not proposing to codify the
authorization of Michigan’s changes at
this time. However, EPA reserves the
ability to amend 40 CFR part 272,
subpart X, for the authorization of
Michigan’s program changes at a later
date.
K. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this action from
the requirements of Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011). This action proposes to authorize
State requirements for the purpose of
RCRA section 3006 and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. Therefore, this
action is not subject to review by OMB.
This authorization is not an Executive
Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017) regulatory action because actions
such as this proposed authorization of
Michigan’s revised hazardous waste
program under RCRA are exempted
under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 236 / Monday, December 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
action proposes to authorize 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 (2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538). For the same reason, this action
also does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of tribal
governments, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). This action will not have
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, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely
proposes to authorize State
requirements as part of the State RCRA
hazardous waste program without
altering the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established by RCRA.
This action also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant, and it does not
make decisions based on environmental
health or safety risks. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA
grants a state’s application for
authorization as long as the state meets
the criteria required by RCRA. It would
thus be inconsistent with applicable law
for EPA, when it reviews a state
authorization application, to require the
use of any particular voluntary
consensus standard in place of another
standard that otherwise satisfies 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. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in
proposing this rulemaking, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct. EPA
has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 10, 2021
Jkt 256001
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. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
‘‘Burden’’ is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
Because this action proposes
authorization of pre-existing State rules
which are at least equivalent to, and no
less stringent than existing Federal
requirements, and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law, and there are no
anticipated significant adverse human
health or environmental effects, this
proposed rule is not subject to Executive
Order 12898.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental Protection;
Administrative Practice and Procedure;
Confidential Business Information;
Hazardous Materials transportation;
Hazardous Waste; Indian lands;
Intergovernmental Relations; Penalties;
Reporting, and Recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: This action is issued under the
authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and
7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: December 3, 2021.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021–26829 Filed 12–10–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70793
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 73 and 74
[GN Docket No. 16–142; FCC 21–116; FR
ID 60151]
Authorizing Permissive Use of the
‘‘Next Generation’’ Broadcast
Television Standard
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission proposes changes to its
Next Gen TV rules designed to preserve
over-the-air television viewers’ access to
the widest possible range of
programming while also supporting
television broadcasters’ transition to the
next generation of broadcast digital
television (DTV) technology. In
response to a Petition filed by the
National Association of Broadcasters
(NAB), the Commission proposes to
allow Next Gen TV stations to include
within their license certain of their nonprimary video programming streams
(multicast streams) that are aired in a
different service on ‘‘host’’ stations
during a transitional period, using the
same licensing framework, and to a
large extent the same regulatory regime,
established for the simulcast of primary
video programming streams on ‘‘host’’
station facilities.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
February 11, 2022; reply comments are
due on or before March 14, 2022.
Written comments on the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) proposed
information collection requirements
must be submitted by the public, Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before
February 11, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by GN Docket No. 16–142, by
any of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13DEP1.SGM
13DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 236 (Monday, December 13, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70790-70793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26829]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA-R05-RCRA-2021-0389; FRL-9191-01-R5]
Michigan: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Michigan has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended.
EPA has reviewed Michigan's application and has determined that these
changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization. Therefore, we are proposing to authorize the State's
changes. EPA seeks public comment prior to taking final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 27, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Instructions: EPA must receive your comments by January
27, 2022. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R05-RCRA-2021-
0389.
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 federal www.regulations.gov website 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 disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. (For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov, index. Although listed in the index, some
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 www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Mullins, RCRA C&D Section,
Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, LL-17J,
Chicago, IL 60604. Angela Mullins can be reached by telephone at (312)
886-4237 or via email at [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), 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 268, 270, 273, and 279.
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized states at the
same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. Thus, EPA will
implement those requirements and prohibitions in Michigan including the
issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the
State is granted authorization to do so.
B. What decisions has EPA made in this rule?
On April 8, 2021, Michigan submitted a complete program revision
application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste
program that correspond to certain Federal rules promulgated between
January 13, 2015 and January 3, 2018 (also known as RCRA Clusters XXV
and XXVI). EPA concludes that Michigan's application to revise its
authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory
requirements established under RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section
3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA
proposes to grant Michigan final authorization to operate its hazardous
waste program with the changes described in the authorization
application, and as outlined below in Section G of this document.
Michigan has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities 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 HSWA, as
discussed above.
C. What is the effect of this proposed authorization decision?
If Michigan is authorized for the changes described in Michigan's
authorization application, these changes will become part of the
authorized State hazardous waste program and will therefore be
federally enforceable. Michigan will continue to have primary
enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste
program. EPA would maintain its authorities under RCRA sections 3007,
3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests,
analyses and reports;
Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State
program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
[[Page 70791]]
This action will not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations which EPA is proposing to
authorize Michigan are already effective under state law and are not
changed by this proposed action.
D. What happens if EPA receives comments that oppose this action?
If EPA receives comments on this proposed action, we will address
all such comments in a later final rule. You may not have another
opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization,
you should 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); on August 28,
2015 (80 FR 52194), effective August 28, 2015; and on June 6, 2019 (84
FR 26359), effective June 6, 2019.
F. What changes are we proposing with this action?
On April 8, 2021, Michigan submitted a final complete program
revision application, seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous
waste management program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA proposes
to determine, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this
action, that Michigan's hazardous waste program revisions are
equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal
program, and therefore satisfy all of the requirements necessary to
qualify for final authorization. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
authorize Michigan for the following program changes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Revision Checklists generally reflect changes to Federal
regulations pursuant to a particular Federal Register document; EPA
publishes these checklists as aids to states to use for development
of their authorization revision application. See EPA's RCRA State
Authorization website at https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/laws-regs/state/index.htm.
\2\ Original rule authorized on June 6, 2019. Court decisions
from September 2018 were not included in original authorization.
Checklist 233D2 is being resubmitted to include impacted sections.
Table 1--Authorized Michigan Program Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analogous state
Federal Register authority (MAC R
Description of Federal date and page (and/ 299.***, effective
requirement and revision or RCRA statutory August 3, 2020,
checklist number \1\ authority) unless otherwise
specified)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes affecting all non-waste January 13, 2015, 9202(7), 11003(1),
determinations and variances, 80 FR 1694; May 9202(8),
Checklist 233A-2. 30, 2018, 83 FR effective April
24664. 5, 2017.
Legitimacy-related provisions, January 13, 2015, 9102(t), 9104(d),
including prohibition of sham 80 FR 1694; May 9232(1), 9232(2),
recycling, and definitions of 30, 2018, 83 FR 9202(1), and
legitimacy and contained, 24664. 9107(v),
checklist 233B-2. effective April
5, 2017.
2008 DSW exclusions and non- January 13, 2015, 92013(v), 9104(e)
waste determinations, including 80 FR 1694; May and (bb),
revisions from 2015 DSW final 30, 2018, 83 FR 9105(b), 9108(h),
rule and 2018 DSW final rule, 24664. 9202(1), (6) and
checklist 233D2-2 \2\. (7), 11003(1),
9107 (b),
9204(1), 9201(1),
9234(1), and
9519(5),
effective April
5, 2017.
Imports and Exports of Hazardous November 28, 2016, 9101(s), 9103(a),
Waste, Checklist 236. 81 FR 85696. 9107(c),
11001(7), 9204(4)
and (6), 9206(3)
and (6), 9231(1)
and (7), 11003(1)
and (2), 9301(7),
9308(7), 9312(3),
9309, 9310,
9314(1) and (2),
9401(5), 9409(1)
and (5), 9605(1)
and (4), 9608(1),
(4), and (12),
9601(3) and (9),
9803(2), 9804(7)-
(11), 9228(4),
(5), (6), (7),
(10) and (11).
Hazardous Waste Generator Rule November 28, 2016, 9101(o), 9102(d)
Improvements Checklist 237. 81 FR 85730. and (n), 9105(h),
(dd), 9107(z),
9109(ii), 11002,
9201, 9107(r),
9205, 9205(1),
9206(1)(c),
9214(2)-(4),
9234(1) and (2),
11003(1) and (2),
9104(s), 9301(1),
(2), (3), (7),
(9), and (10),
9302(1), (2),
(3), and (7),
9311(1) and (7),
9303(1)-(8),
9304(1)--(3),
9305(1)--(4),
9306(1)--(5),
9307(1)--(7),
9308(1)--(7),
9309, 9310(1) and
(2), 9311(1)-(3)
and (5)-(7),
9312(1)-(3) and
(7), 9315(1)-(3),
9316(1)-(7),
9103, 9106, 9109,
9401(1), 9404(1),
9503(1)(a) and
(b), 9605(1) and
(4), 9608(3),
9610(1), 9614(1)
and (2), 9615(1)
and (7), 9631(1)
and (2), 9634(1)
and (2),
9503(1)(a) and
(b), 9601(1),
(2), (3), and
(9), 9804,
9822(13), 9313(1)
and (2), 9413(1)
and (2), 9627(1)
and (2), 9519,
9229(3), 9229(2),
9809(1)(a).
Confidentiality Determinations December 26, 2017 9231(1) and (7),
for Hazardous Waste Export and 82 FR 60894. 11103(1) and (2),
Import Documents, Checklist 238. 9314(1)-(3).
Hazardous Waste Electric January 3, 2018, 9601(3) and (9),
Manifest User Fee Rule, 83 FR 420. 9608(1), (9),
Checklist 239. (14), and (15),
11003(1) and (2),
9309(1) and (6),
9409(1) and (5),
9634(1) and (2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70792]]
Table 2--Equivalent State-Initiated Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan administrative rules (MAC R Effective date of amended State
299.*** unless otherwise specified) requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9103(i) (definition of ``EPA February 21, 2021.
Acknowledgement of Consent (AOC)'',
9106(s) (definition of ``Primary
exporter''), 9228, 9314, 9405(2)(f)
and (3)(d), 9511(5)(b), 9608(4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Which revised state rules are different from the Federal rules?
When revised state rules differ from the Federal rules in the RCRA
state authorization process, EPA determines whether the state rules are
equivalent to, more stringent than, or broader in scope than the
Federal program. Pursuant to Section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929,
state programs may contain requirements that are more stringent than
the Federal regulations. Such more stringent requirements can be
federally authorized and, once authorized, become federally
enforceable. Although the statute does not prevent states from adopting
regulations that are broader in scope than the Federal program, states
cannot receive Federal authorization for such regulations, and they are
not federally enforceable.
EPA considers the following Michigan requirements to be more
stringent than the Federal requirements:
Michigan does not adopt standardized permits, making the State
requirements more stringent than the Federal requirement at 40 CFR
267.71(a)(4)-(6)(i) and (ii), (c), (d); and 267.1(a).
Michigan does not allow containment buildings, making its State
requirements more stringent than the Federal requirements at 40 CFR
262.16(b)(4)(iii)(B), (5)(i) and (ii)(A) through (C), (6)(i) and
(ii)(A) through (D), (7), and (8)(i) through (vi); 262.17(a)(3)(iii)(A)
and (B), (4)(i) and (ii)(A) through (C), (5)(i)(B) and (ii)(B),
(8)(i)(B), (c)(4)(i)(C)(1)and (2), and (iv)(B).
Michigan's rules at R 299.9304(1)(e)(xii)(B), R 299.9305(1)(e)(B),
R 299.9316(2)(e)(i)(B)(2), R 299.9316(2)(e)(i)(B)(2), R
299.9316(3)(e)(i) (B)(2), and R 299.9316(3)(e) (ii)(B) (2) are more
stringent than the Federal analogs at 40 CFR 262.14(a)(5)(viii)(B)(2),
232.15(a)(5)(ii), 262.232(a)(4)(i)(B), 262.232(a)(4)(ii)(B),
262.232(b)(4)(i) (B), 262.232(b)(4)(ii) (B), and 268.50(a)(1) since the
State's rulings include the requirement of labeling each container with
a description of the waste or the hazardous waste number while the
Federal rule only requires an indication of the hazards of the
contents. These requirements would become part of Michigan's authorized
program and would be federally enforceable.
EPA also considers the following State requirements go beyond the
scope of the Federal program:
Michigan's rules at R 299.9214(3) and (4) are broader in scope than
the Federal analog at 40 CFR 261.33(f) with respect to the chemicals
listed in table 205c that are not included in Federal regulations. This
expands the number of chemicals listed as toxic wastes by the rule.
Broader-in-scope requirements do not become part of the authorized
program and EPA cannot enforce them. Although regulated entities must
comply with these requirements in accordance with State law, they are
not RCRA requirements.
H. Who handles permits after final authorization takes effect?
When 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 issued
prior to the effective date of the proposed 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 Table 1after the
effective date of the final authorization. EPA will continue to
implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Michigan is
not yet authorized. EPA has the authority to enforce state-issued
permits after the State is authorized.
I. How does this 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 or abutting 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, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPA retains
jurisdiction over Indian country and will continue to implement and
administer the RCRA program on these lands. 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 citations and references to
a state's statutes and regulations that comprise the state's authorized
hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does
this by adding those citations and references to the authorized state
rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA previously codified Michigan's rules up
to and including those revised October 19, 1991 effective April 24,
1989 (54 FR 7421, February 21, 1989); as amended effective March 31,
1992 (57 FR 3724, January 31, 1992). EPA is not proposing to codify the
authorization of Michigan's changes at this time. However, EPA reserves
the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272, subpart X, for the authorization
of Michigan's program changes at a later date.
K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action proposes to
authorize State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This
authorization is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as this proposed
authorization of Michigan's revised hazardous waste program under RCRA
are exempted under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, I certify that
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small
[[Page 70793]]
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this action proposes to authorize 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). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will
not have 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to authorize State requirements as part of
the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant, and it does not make decisions based on environmental
health or safety risks. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a state's application for
authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies 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. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in proposing this rulemaking, EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 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. This action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). ``Burden'' is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. Because this action proposes
authorization of pre-existing State rules which are at least equivalent
to, and no less stringent than existing Federal requirements, and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law,
and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or
environmental effects, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive
Order 12898.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental Protection; Administrative Practice and Procedure;
Confidential Business Information; Hazardous Materials transportation;
Hazardous Waste; Indian lands; Intergovernmental Relations; Penalties;
Reporting, and Recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: This action is issued under the authority of
Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: December 3, 2021.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021-26829 Filed 12-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P