14848 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

impose any new burdens on small

entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This preliminary determination

contains no requests for information and

consequently is not subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–7820 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–5803–1]

Michigan: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

and public comment period.

SUMMARY: Michigan has applied for final

authorization of revisions to its

hazardous management program under

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act on 1976, as amended,

(hereinafter RCRA) resulting from

Michigan Executive Order 1995–18 (EO

1995–18). The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has reviewed Michigan’s

application and has reached a proposed

decision, subject to public review and

comment, that the hazardous waste

management program revisions

resulting from EO 1995–18 satisfy the

requirements necessary to qualify for

final authorization. Thus, EPA believes

it is appropriate to approve these

Michigan hazardous waste management

program revisions. Michigan’s

application for program revision is

available for public review and

comment.

DATES: All comments on this proposed

rulemaking must be received by close of

business on April 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

document may be submitted to Ms. Judy

Feigler, U.S. EPA, State Programs and

Authorization Section, Waste, Pesticides

and Toxics Division (DR–7J), 77 West

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604–3590.

In the alternative, U.S. EPA will accept

comments electronically. Comments

should be sent to the following Internet

E-mail address:

feigler.judith@epamail.epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be submitted

in an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. EPA will print electronic

comments in hard-copy paper form for

the official administrative record. EPA

will attempt to clarify electronic

comments if there is an apparent error

in transmission. Comments provided

electronically will be considered timely

if they are submitted electronically by

11:59 p.m. (Central Time) April 28,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Judy Feigler at the EPA address noted

above or telephone at (312) 886–4179.

Copies of the State of Michigan’s final

authorization revision application are

available during normal business hours

at the following addresses for inspection

and copying: Library of Michigan,

Government Documents Section, 717

West Allegan, Lansing, Michigan; Olson

Library, Northern Michigan University,

Harden Circle Drive, Marquette,

Michigan; Detroit Public Library Main

Branch, Sociology and Economics

Department, 5201 Woodward Avenue,

Detroit, Michigan; and Ms. Judy Feigler,

U.S. EPA, State Programs and

Authorization Section, Waste, Pesticides

and Toxics Division (DR–7J), 77 West

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3590,

or telephone (312) 886–4179. To arrange

for access to the materials in Lansing,

call (517) 373–9489 between 9 a.m. and

6 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays

and between 12 p.m. and 4 p.m. on

Sundays (Eastern time); in Marquette,

call (906) 227–2260 for current library

hours; in Detroit, call (313) 833–1440

between 9:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on

Tuesdays and Thursdays through

Saturdays, and between 1 p.m. and 9

p.m. on Wednesdays (Eastern time); and

in Chicago, call (312) 886–4179 between

9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Mondays

through Fridays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

States with final authorization under

Section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6929(b), have a continuing obligation to

maintain a hazardous waste program

that is equivalent to, consistent with,

and no less stringent than the Federal

hazardous waste management program.

When either EPA’s or a State program’s

controlling statutory or regulatory

authority is modified or supplemented,

or when certain other changes occur,

revisions to State hazardous waste

management programs may be

necessary. The procedures that States

and EPA must follow for revision of

State programs are found at 40 CFR

271.21.

The State of Michigan initially

received final authorization for its

hazardous waste management program

effective on October 30, 1986 (51 FR

36804–36805, October 16, 1986).

Subsequently, Michigan received

authorization for revisions to its

program, effective on January 23, 1990

(54 FR 225, November 24, 1989); June

24, 1991 (56 FR 18517, April 23, 1991);

November 30, 1993 (58 FR 51244,

October 1, 1993); and April 8, 1996 (61

FR 4742, February 8, 1996). Michigan’s

Program Description, dated June 30,

1984, and addenda thereto dated June

30, 1986; September 12, 1988; July 31,

1990; August 10, 1992; and March 22,

1995, which is a component of the

State’s original final authorization and

subsequent revision applications,

specified that the Michigan Department

of Natural Resources (MDNR) was the

agency responsible for implementing

Michigan’s hazardous waste

management program. The Program

Description indicated that the Site

Review Board (SRB) also had authority

to approve or deny construction permit

applications. The SRB was subsequently

made a consultative body and the SRB’s

powers were transferred to the Director

of the MDNR by Executive Order 1991–

31, which took effect on September 2,

1993.

On July 31, 1995, the Governor of

Michigan issued Executive Order 1995–

18 (EO 1995–18), which became

effective on October 1, 1995. On January

19, 1996, Michigan submitted materials

for EPA to determine the impact of EO

1995–18 upon the authorized State

hazardous waste management program.

The materials consisted of a letter from

the Michigan Attorney General’s office

setting forth the State of Michigan’s

analysis as to why the establishment of

the new Michigan DEQ does not

represent a transfer to a ‘‘new agency’’

pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21(c), a copy of

EO 1995–18, updated letters of

delegation and procedures regarding

avoidance of conflict of interest in

contested case proceedings. On June 13,

1996, Michigan submitted a

supplemental statement of the Michigan

Attorney General regarding the

appraisal of the Attorney General of the

impact of EO 1995–18 on Michigan’s

delegated environmental programs. In

the supplemental statement, the

Attorney General explained that the

effect of EO 1995–18 was to elevate the

former Environmental Protection

Bureau of the Department of Natural

Resources to full independent

departmental status as the Department

of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

According to the Michigan Attorney

General, ‘‘the DEQ retained all of its

environmental responsibilities and

virtually all of the personnel formerly

assigned to it as a bureau of the DNR.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 14849

The Attorney General further stated that

‘‘E.O. 1995–18 did not substantively

change the State’s statutes or rules

relating to the administration of

federally delegated programs nor was

any authority, power, duty or function

contained within Michigan’s statutes or

rules applicable to federally delegated

programs diminished by the execution

of E.O. 1995–18. Specifically, E.O.

1995–18 did not affect program

jurisdiction, the scope of activities

regulated, criteria for the review of

permits, public participation,

enforcement capabilities or the

adequacy of Michigan’s legal authority

to carry out its federally delegated

programs.’

Based on the information available,

EPA has determined that the

reorganization of the State’s hazardous

waste management program resulting

from EO 1995–18 constitutes a program

revision requiring appropriate EPA

review and approval under RCRA. EPA

has also determined that the EO 1995–

18 did not result in significant

modification of Michigan’s hazardous

waste program, nor did the Order

transfer any part of the program from

the approved State agency to any other

State agency. Therefore, EPA does not

view the reorganization as a transfer

within the purview of 40 CFR 271.21(c).

Consequently, EPA has made a

proposed decision, subject to public

review and comment, that Michigan’s

hazardous waste program revisions

resulting from EO 1995–18 satisfy the

requirements necessary to qualify for

final authorization. The public may

submit written comments on EPA’s

proposed decision making up until

April 28, 1997. A copy of Michigan’s

application for program revision is

available for inspection and copying as

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

notice.

EPA wishes to note that it presently

has pending before it a request,

submitted in a letter dated June 14, 1996

by the Michigan Environmental Council

(MEC), to revoke Michigan’s National

Pollution Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) and Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) program approvals,

not grant additional program

delegations and not grant program

approval for Boiler and Industrial

Furnace revisions under RCRA. This

request is based upon Michigan’s recent

enactment of Public Act 132 of 1996,

which establishes certain environmental

audit privilege and immunity provisions

in the state’s natural resources and

environmental protection code. In

response to the request, EPA is currently

in the process of reviewing Public Act

132 of 1996 and its potential impact on

Michigan’s federally delegated,

approved and authorized programs,

including RCRA. EO 1995–18 predated

passage of Act 132.

EPA’s proposed action today only

addresses and seeks comment on the

impact of EO 1995–18 noted above on

Michigan’s RCRA program. EPA’s

decision to preliminarily approve of

revisions to Michigan’s RCRA program

arising out of EO 1995–18 does not

express any viewpoint on the question

of whether there are legal deficiencies in

Michigan’s RCRA program resulting

from Public Act 132 of 1996, which was

enacted after this Executive Order was

issued. EPA will subsequently address

the issues raised by MEC regarding

Public Act 132 of 1996 in responding to

the MEC request.

Approval of Michigan’s program

revision shall become effective upon

publication of the Regional

Administrator’s final approval in the

Federal Register. If adverse comment

pertaining to Michigan’s program

revision is received during the comment

period, EPA will publish either: (1) A

notice of disapproval; or (2) a final

approval of the modifications, which

would include appropriate comment

response.

If final approval is granted, Michigan

will maintain final authorization to

operate its hazardous waste

management program, as revised by EO

1995–18. Michigan will continue to

have responsibility for permitting

treatment, storage, and disposal

facilities within its borders and carrying

out other aspects of the RCRA program,

subject to the limitation of its revised

program application and previously

approved authorities. Michigan also will

maintain primary enforcement

responsibilities, although EPA retains

the right to conduct inspections under

section 3007 of RCRA, and to take

enforcement actions under sections

3008, 3013 and 7003 of RCRA.

Michigan is not seeking authority to

operate the Federal program on Indian

lands. This authority will remain with

EPA unless provided otherwise in a

future statute or regulation.

Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735; October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this action from

E.O. 12866 review.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104–

4, establishes requirements for Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year.

Today’s proposal would contain no

Federal mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

State, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector. Today’s proposal would

merely recognize an internal

reorganization of an existing approved

RCRA State program. EPA has

determined that this proposal would not

contain any Federal mandate that may

result in expenditures of $100 million or

more for State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or the

private sector in any one year.

Therefore, today’s proposal is not

subject to the requirements of section

202 of the UMRA.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, it must

have developed under section 203 of the

UMRA a small government agency plan.

The plan must provide for notifying

potentially affected small governments,

enabling officials of affected small

governments to have meaningful and

timely input in the development of EPA

regulatory proposals with significant

Federal intergovernmental mandates,

and informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements. Because
14850 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

today’s proposal would merely

recognize an internal reorganization of

an existing approved RCRA State

program, EPA has determined that this

proposal contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

provides that, whenever an agency

promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C.

553, after being required to publish a

general notice of proposed rulemaking,

an agency must prepare a final

regulatory flexibility analysis unless the

head of the agency certifies that the final

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 604

& 605. The Regional Administrator

today certifies, pursuant to section

605(b) of the RFA, that approval of any

revisions to Michigan’s RCRA program

resulting from the reorganization of the

Michigan environmental agencies will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The basis for the certification is that

EPA’s approval would simply result in

an administrative change in the

structure of the approved RCRA

program, rather than a change in the

substantive requirements imposed on

any small entity in the State of

Michigan. Such an approval would not

affect the substantive regulatory

requirements under existing State law to

which small entities are already subject.

Additionally, approval of the RCRA

program modification would not impose

any new burdens on small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposal contains no requests for

information and consequently is not

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

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 record keeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

Authority: This notice 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: March 14, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–7817 Filed 3–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 799

[OPPTS–42187F; FRL–5598–4]

RIN 2070–AC76

Proposed Test Rule for Hazardous Air

Pollutants; Extension of Comment

Period on Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of comment period on

proposed test rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the public

comment period from April 30, 1997 to

June 30, 1997 on the proposed rule to

require the testing of 21 hazardous air

pollutants (HAPs) for certain health

effects. This proposed rule was

published in the Federal Register on

June 26, 1996 (61 FR 33178)(FRL–4869–

1). On February 28, 1997, EPA extended

the public comment period from March

31, 1997 to April 30, 1997 (62 FR

9142)(FRL–5592–1).

DATES: Written comments on the

proposed rule must be received by EPA

on or before June 30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit three copies of

written comments on the proposed

HAPs test rule, identified by document

control number (OPPTS–42187A; FRL–

4869–1) to: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics (OPPT),

Document Control Office (7407), Rm. G–

099, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460.

A public version of the official

rulemaking record supporting this

action, excluding confidential business

information (CBI), is available for

inspection at the TSCA Nonconfidential

Information Center, Rm. NE–B607, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, from

12 noon to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except on legal holidays.

All comments that contain

information claimed as CBI must be

clearly marked as such. Three sanitized

copies of any comments containing

information claimed as CBI must also be

submitted and will be placed in the

public record for this rulemaking.

Persons submitting information that

they believe is entitled to treatment as

CBI must assert a business

confidentiality claim in accordance with

40 CFR part 2. This claim must be made

at the time that the information is

submitted to EPA. If a submitter does

not assert a confidentiality claim at the

time of submission, EPA will treat the

information as non-confidential and

may make it available to the public

without further notice to the submitter.

Comments and data may also be

submitted in electronic form by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: opptncic@epamail.epa.gov. Such comments

and data must be submitted in an ASCII

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by (OPPTS–

42187A)(FRL–4869–1). No information

claimed as CBI should be submitted

through e-mail. Comments in electronic

form may be filed online at many

federal depository libraries.

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, will be maintained in paper

form. EPA will transfer all comments

received electronically into paper form

and will place the paper copies in the

official record. The official record is the

paper record maintained at the address

listed at the beginning of the

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ section of this

document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Rm. ET–543B, Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone (202) 554–1404; TDD: (202)

554–0551; e-mail: TSCAHotline@epamail.epa.gov.

For technical information contact:

Richard W. Leukroth, Jr , Project

Manager, Chemical Control Division

(7405), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW,

Washington, DC, 20460; telephone:

(202) 260–0321; fax: (202) 260–8850; email: leukroth.rich@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

26, 1996 (61 FR 33178), EPA proposed

health effects testing, under section 4(a)

of the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA), of the following hazardous air

pollutants (HAPs): 1,1’-biphenyl,

carbonyl sulfide, chlorine,

chlorobenzene, chloroprene, cresols [3

isomers], diethanolamine, ethylbenzene,

ethylene dichloride, ethylene glycol,

hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride,

maleic anhydride, methyl isobutyl

ketone, methyl methacrylate,

naphthalene, phenol, phthalic

anhydride, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene,

1,1,2-trichloroethane, and vinylidene

chloride. EPA would use the data

generated under the rule to implement

several provisions of section 112 of the

Clean Air Act and to meet other EPA

data needs and those of other Federal

agencies. In the HAPs proposal, EPA

invited the submission of proposals for