```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52194-52198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21385]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689; FRL-9933-29--Region 5]

Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Michigan applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
for final authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste 
program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). On 
March 31, 2015, EPA published a proposed rule to authorize the changes 
and opened a public comment period under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-
2014-0689. The comment period closed on June 1, 2015. EPA received no 
comments on the proposed rule. EPA has decided that the changes to 
Michigan's program satisfy all requirements necessary to qualify for 
final authorization, and EPA is

[[Page 52195]]

authorizing those changes to Michigan's authorized hazardous waste 
program in this final rule.

DATES: Final authorization for the changes to the hazardous waste 
program in Michigan will be effective at 1 p.m. EST on August 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
regulations.gov index under Docket Identification No. EPA-2014-R05-
RCRA-2014-0689. Although listed in the index, some of the information 
is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information 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 at regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the following addresses, Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois, contact: Judith Greenberg, telephone (312) 886-4179; 
or Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Constitution Hall, 525 
West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan, contact: Ronda Blayer, 
telephone (517) 284-6555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Greenberg, U.S. EPA, Region 5, 
Land and Chemicals Division, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Mail Code LR-8J, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, email: greenberg.judith@epa.gov, phone number 
(312) 886-4179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA 
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste 
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent 
than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must 
change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to 
state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or 
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. 
Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to 
EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 
260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    EPA has made a final determination that Michigan's revisions to its 
authorized hazardous waste management program meet all of the statutory 
and regulatory requirements established by RCRA for authorization. 
Therefore, EPA is authorizing the revised State of Michigan hazardous 
waste management program, as described in the Attorney General's 
Statement in the June 2014 authorization revision application, and as 
discussed in section E of this rule. Michigan has responsibility for 
permitting treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within 
its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects 
of the RCRA program covered by its revised program application, subject 
to the limitations of RCRA, including 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 has Michigan previously been authorized for?

    Michigan's hazardous waste management program received final 
authorization effective on October 16, 1986 (51 FR 36804-36805, October 
16, 1986). Subsequently, EPA authorized revisions to the State's 
program effective January 23, 1990 (54 FR 48608, November 24, 1989); 
January 24, 1991 (56 FR 18517, January 24, 1991); November 30, 1993 (58 
FR 51244, October 1, 1993); January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3095, January 13, 
1995); April 8, 1996 (61 FR 4742, February 8, 1996); November 14, 1997 
(62 FR 61775, November 14, 1997); June 1, 1999 (64 FR 10111, March 2, 
1999); July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49617, July 31, 2002); March 9, 2006 (71 FR 
12141, March 9, 2006); January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1077, January 7, 2008); 
and March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345, March 2, 2010).

D. What is the effect of this authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in Michigan subject 
to RCRA has to comply with the authorized state requirements in lieu of 
the corresponding federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA, 
and those authorized requirements will be federally enforceable. 
Additionally, such persons must comply with any applicable federal 
requirements, such as, for example, HSWA requirements issued by EPA for 
which the state has not received authorization, and RCRA requirements 
that are not supplanted by authorized state-issued requirements. 
Michigan continues to have enforcement responsibilities under its state 
hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains 
its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, and any 
other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, which include, 
among others, authority to:
     Perform inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses 
or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements; suspend, terminate, modify or 
revoke permits; and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State 
has taken its own actions.
    This final action approving these revisions does not impose 
additional requirements on the regulated community because the 
regulations for which Michigan is authorized are already effective 
under state law and are not changed by EPA's final action.

E. What changes are we authorizing with today's action?

    This final rule addresses a program revision application that 
Michigan submitted to EPA in June 2014, in accordance with 40 CFR 
271.21, seeking authorization of changes to the state program. On March 
31, 2015, EPA published a proposed rule (80 FR 17021) stating the 
Agency's intent to grant final authorization for revisions to 
Michigan's hazardous waste management program. The public comment 
period on this proposed rule ended on June 1, 2015. EPA received no 
comments during the public comment period.
    EPA has determined that Michigan's changes to its program satisfy 
all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. 
With this final action, EPA authorizes Michigan for the following 
federal rules (a table with a list of the State analogs is provided in 
the March 31, 2015, proposed rule) and the following state-initiated 
changes:
     NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors 
(Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) Amendments, 73 FR 
18970, April 8, 2008, Checklist 217.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revision Checklists generally reflect changes to federal 
regulations pursuant to a particular Federal Register notice; EPA 
publishes these checklists as aids to states to use for development 
of their authorization revision application. See EPA's RCRA State 
Authorization Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/laws-regs/state/index.htm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 52196]]

     F019 Exemption for Wastewater Treatment Sludges from Auto 
Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating Processes, June 4, 2008, 73 FR 31756, 
Checklist 218.
     Academic Laboratories Generator Standards, December 1, 
2008, 73 FR 72912, Checklist 220.
     OECD Requirements: Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid 
Batteries, January 8, 2010, 75 FR 1236, Checklist 222.
     Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications 
Rule, as amended, March 16, 2010, 75 FR 12989; and June 4, 2010, 75 FR 
31716, Checklist 223.
     Removal of Saccharin and Its Salts, December 17, 2010, 75 
FR 78918, Checklist 225.
     Corrections to the Academic Generator Standards, December 
20, 2010, 75 FR 79304, Checklist 226.
     Revisions of the Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes, 
June 13, 2011, 75 FR 34147, Checklist 227.
     Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications, 
April 13, 2012, 77 FR 22229, Checklist 228.
     Equivalent state-initiated changes:
    Michigan administrative rules R 299.9102 (definition of 
``construction permit'' removed), R 299.9106(e) (definition of 
``operating license'' modified), R 299.9224, R 299.9225, R 
299.9304(2)(b), R 299.9409(4), R 299.9501 (except second sentence only 
of paragraph (3)(d)), R 299.9505, R 299.9524, R 299.9603, R 
299.9604(2), R 299.9605, R 299.9609, R 299.9610(3), R 299.9612, R 
299.9615, R 299.9616, R 299.9623, R 299.9629, R 299.9640, R 299.9707, R 
299.9708, R 299.9808, and R 299.9821, effective November 5, 2013.

F. Which revised state rules are different from the federal rules?

    The most significant differences between the state rules we are 
authorizing and their analogous federal rules are summarized below. It 
should be noted that this summary does not describe every difference or 
every detail regarding the differences that are described. Members of 
the regulated community are advised to read the complete rules to 
ensure that they understand the requirements with which they will need 
to comply.
    EPA has found that aspects of the Michigan program are more 
stringent than the federal program. All of these more stringent 
requirements are part of the federally enforceable RCRA program 
authorized by the EPA and must be complied with in addition to the 
state requirements which track the minimum federal requirements. These 
more stringent requirements are found at:
    Michigan's rules at (references are to the Michigan Administrative 
Code):
    R 299.9601(1), (2), (2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i); R 
299.9608(1), (6) and (8); R 299.9615; and R 299.9702(1) are more 
stringent than the federal analogs at 40 CFR Sec. Sec.  265.56(b), 
265.71, 265.72, 265.142(a), 265.174, 265.190(a), 265.193, 265.194, 
265.197, 265.201, and 265.340(b)(1) since the State rules include 
provisions that require compliance with standards equivalent to 40 CFR 
part 264 rather than 40 CFR part 265.
    Michigan's rules at R 299.9601(2)(a) and R 299.9602 are more 
stringent since the rules impose requirements regarding environmental 
and human health standards generally.
    Michigan's rules at R 299.9615(4) are more stringent since the 
State rules require tank systems to also comply with Michigan 1941 Act 
207 standards (which govern above-ground storage tanks).
    Michigan's rules at R 299.9623(9) are more stringent since the 
State rules require incinerators to comply with Michigan Part 55 
standards (which address air pollution).
    Michigan does not allow containment buildings, making the state 
requirements more stringent than the federal requirements at 40 CFR 
262.10(f), (k)(1) and (k); 262.11(d); 262.41(b); 263.12; 40 CFR part 
264 subpart DD; 40 CFR 265 subpart DD; and 40 CFR part 264 appendix I, 
Tables 1 and 2.
    Michigan's rules at R 299.9629(7)-(7)(c) are more stringent, since 
the State rules require (1) timely notification of an exceedance of a 
groundwater/surface water interface standard based on acute toxicity 
and established pursuant to part 201 and part 31 of Act 451; and (2) 
implementation of interim measures to prevent exceedance at the 
monitoring wells along with a proposal and schedule for completing 
corrective action to prevent a discharge that exceeds the standard.
    Michigan's rules at R 299.11002(1) and (2) are more stringent than 
the federal analogs at 40 CFR 260.11(d) and (d)(1) since the State 
adopts updated versions of the ``Flammable and Combustible Liquids 
Code.''
    EPA has also found that aspects of Michigan's revised program are 
broader in scope than the federal program. State provisions that EPA 
determines are broader in scope are not part of the federally 
authorized program and are not federally enforceable. Michigan's 
program revisions include the following rules that are broader in scope 
than the federal program (references are to the Michigan Administrative 
Code): R 299.9226, R 299.9501(3)(d) (second sentence only) and R 
299.9507, as amended effective November 5, 2013.
    The following Michigan administrative rules that were broader in 
scope than the federal program were rescinded effective November 5, 
2013: R 299.9221 (Table 203b), R 299.9223 (Table 204b), R 299.9904, R 
299.9905, R 299.9906, and R 299.11101, R 299.11102, R 299.11103, R 
299.11104, R 299.11105, R 299.11106, and R 299.11107.
    EPA does not authorize States to administer federal import and 
export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste 
regulations. Although states do not receive authorization to administer 
the federal government's import and export functions, found in 40 CFR 
part 262, subparts E, F and H, state programs are still required to 
adopt the federal import and export provisions to maintain their 
equivalency with the federal program. The State amended the following 
state import and export rules to include the federal rule on 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
Requirements; Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (75 FR 
1236, January 8, 2010): R 299.9301(7); R 299.9309(1), (3) and (4); R 
299.9312(1) and (2); R 299.9401(5); R 299.9601(2)(c), (3) and (9); R 
299.9605(1) and (4); R 299.9608(1), (4) and (8); R 299.9804(7) and (8); 
and R 299.11003(1)(k), (m), (n) and (p) and (2).

G. Who handles permits after final authorization takes effect?

    Michigan will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is 
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue 
to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits 
which EPA issued prior to the effective date of the final authorization 
until they expire or are terminated. EPA will not issue any more new 
permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed above 
after 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.

H. 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

[[Page 52197]]

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 does not affect 
Indian Country in Michigan. EPA continues 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.

I. 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.

J. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements 
pursuant to RCRA section 3006 and imposes no requirements other than 
those imposed by state law (see Supplementary Information, Section A. 
Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?). Therefore, this rule 
complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as 
follows:

1. Executive Order 18266: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its 
review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21, 2011).

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA 
3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those required by 
state law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state 
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) does not apply 
to this rule because it will not have federalism implications (i.e., 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government).

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not 
apply to this rule because it will not have tribal implications (i.e., 
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, or on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes).

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined 
in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA does not have reason to 
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this 
action present a disproportionate risk to children.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 
22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined 
in Executive Order 12866.

9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    EPA approves state programs as long as they meet criteria required 
by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in 
its review of a state program, to require the use of any particular 
voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets 
the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of 
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) do not apply to this rule.

10. Executive Order 12988

    As required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential 
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.

11. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 
Unanticipated Takings

    EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18, 
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance 
with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation 
of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the 
executive order.

12. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    Because this rule proposes authorization of pre-existing state 
rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
state law and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health 
or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

13. Congressional Review Act

    EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other information 
required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) to the 
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller 
General of the United States prior to the publication in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a

[[Page 52198]]

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection; Administrative practice and procedure; 
Confidential business information; Hazardous materials transportation; 
Hazardous waste; Indians--lands; Intergovernmental relations; 
Penalties; Reporting, and Recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Sections 
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: August 10, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-21385 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```