Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
Administrative Rules Division (ARD)  
MOAHR-Rules@michigan.gov  
REQUEST FOR RULEMAKING (RFR)  
1. Department:  
Environment, Great Lakes and Energy  
2. Bureau:  
Water Resources Division  
3. Promulgation type:  
Full Process  
4. Title of proposed rule set:  
Sewerage Systems  
5. Rule numbers or rule set range of numbers:  
R 299.2901 - R 299.2974  
6. Estimated time frame:  
12 months  
Name of person filling out RFR:  
Alyssa Sarver  
Email of person filling out RFR:  
SarverA@michigan.gov  
Phone number of person filling out RFR:  
517-881-1371  
Address of person filling out RFR:  
P.O. Box 30458, Lansing, MI 48909-7958  
7. Describe the general purpose of these rules, including any problems the changes are intended  
to address.  
The general purpose of these rules is to implement the provisions of Part 41, Sewerage Systems, of  
the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (NREPA).  
Currently, wastewater collection systems that discharge to a wastewater treatment facility are  
operated by individuals that are not certified with a system-specific certification. The proposed rules  
will require facility classification and a certified operator for collection systems. EGLE is addressing  
longstanding operation and maintenance issues with collection systems such as breakdowns,  
blockages, capacity issues, infiltration and inflow, and structural integrity issues. The additional  
oversight, operation, and maintenance requirements for the collection systems will provide more  
protection for public health and the environment and assist the receiving wastewater treatment plants  
to better manage their systems to meet permit requirements.  
The proposed retention treatment basin (RTB) facility classification and corresponding operator  
certification requirement will improve the quality of operation of RTB facilities by focusing operator  
knowledge on operational situations and processes unique to these types of facilities. Most RTB  
facilities require operator certification at the Class D level or with industrial wastewater treatment  
certifications that reflect the waste treatment at those systems. Neither of those certification  
processes accurately reflect the nature of an RTB facility. The proposed RTB certification will allow  
those operators to become properly certified with relevant information and continuing education  
requirements.  
Construction permit requirements are being streamlined to better address continuity of service  
MCL 24.239  
RFR-Page 2  
concerns for privately owned, publicly used sewer or sewerage systems. This is currently addressed  
with WRD Policy and Procedure No. WRD-010,  
Part 41 – Sewerage Systems Permit Approval, and the process has been somewhat cumbersome for  
both applicants and WRD staff who process construction permits. The proposed rules will include  
requirements for such systems and streamline the permit process by setting clear expectations in rule  
for privately owned, publicly used systems so that they may plan accordingly when submitting  
applications for Part 41 Wastewater Construction Permits (Part 41 Permit). Additionally, requirements  
for approval of plan revisions have been updated to be consistent with the statute.  
EGLE is proposing to rescind R 299.2972, R 299.2973, and R 299.2974 due to duplicative language  
that exists in the Administrative Procedures Act, 1969 PA 306, as amended; the administrative rules  
pertaining to the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules; and additional rules pertaining  
to contested cases and declaratory rulings.  
8. Please cite the specific promulgation authority for the rules (i.e., department director,  
commission, board, etc.).  
Part 41 of the NREPA provides rulemaking authority to EGLE.  
A. Please list all applicable statutory references (MCLs, Executive Orders, etc.).  
The state statute authorizing the promulgation of these rules is MCL 324.4104(1). The state  
statute authorizing the promulgation of the wastewater construction permit rules is MCL  
324.4105(1).  
B. Are the rules mandated by any applicable constitutional or statutory provision? If so,  
please explain.  
The proposed rules are not mandated by any applicable constitutional or statutory provision.  
9. Please describe the extent to which the rules conflict with or duplicate similar rules,  
compliance requirements, or other standards adopted at the state, regional, or federal level.  
Part 41 Wastewater Construction Permits are not in conflict with nor duplicative of other rules,  
compliance requirements, or standards at the state, regional, or federal level. In fact, the Part 41  
Permit Program complements the federal and state wastewater discharge permitting programs well,  
as Part 41 Permits ensure proper design and construction of public-serving wastewater facilities to  
achieve compliance with such discharge permits.  
Michigan is the only state in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Region 5  
that does not have a required or optional collection system facility classification and certification  
requirement. Of the other Region 5 states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio have collection system  
operator certification requirements; and Illinois and Indiana offer optional certification requirements for  
collection system operators. No states in Region 5 have an RTB facility classification or operator  
certification option or requirement. Wisconsin and Michigan have some certification and classification  
options that mirror the treatment taking place in those systems, but there is no definitive classification.  
10. Is the subject matter of the rules currently contained in any guideline, handbook, manual,  
instructional bulletin, form with instructions, or operational memoranda?  
The proposed rules for collection system facility classification and certified operator requirements are  
not currently outlined in any guideline, handbook, manual, instructional bulletin, form with instructions,  
or operational memoranda.  
For the proposed rules regarding construction permit requirements, the following documents will be  
rescinded or revised with the proposed rule changes:  
WRD Policy and Procedure No. WRD-010, Part 41 – Sewerage Systems Permit Approval, will be  
rescinded.  
Part 41 Sewerage System Construction Permit Application will be revised.  
Internal review guidance and materials will be revised.  
MCL 24.239  
RFR-Page 3  
11. Are the rules listed on the department’s annual regulatory plan as rules to be processed for  
the current year?  
Yes.  
12. Will the proposed rules be promulgated under Section 44 of the administrative procedures act  
of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.244, or under the full rulemaking process?  
Full Process  
13. Please describe the extent to which the rules exceed similar regulations, compliance  
requirements, or other standards adopted at the state, regional, or federal level.  
There are no federal or state mandates for collection system facility classifications and operator  
certification requirements. Michigan is the only state in USEPA’s Region 5 that does not have a  
required or optional collection system facility classification and certification requirement. No states in  
Region 5 have an RTB facility classification or operator certification option or requirement. Wisconsin  
and Michigan have some certification and classification options that mirror the treatment taking place  
in those systems, but there is no definitive classification.  
There are no similar regulations at the federal or regional level for wastewater construction permitting.  
The proposed rule revisions will update an existing state wastewater construction permitting program  
and will not result in requirements that exceed the existing state regulations.  
14. Do the rules incorporate the recommendations received from the public regarding any  
complaints or comments regarding the rules? If yes, please explain.  
Yes, the proposed rules incorporate recommendations received from a diverse stakeholder group.  
The proposed collection system and RTB facility classification and operator certification rules were  
developed over a series of 18 meetings, and the group recommended facility classification levels and  
requirements; proposed examination questions for future certification requirements; and commented  
on EGLE’s recommendation to streamline the construction permit process.  
15. If amending an existing rule set, please provide the date of the last evaluation of the rules and  
the degree, if any, to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed  
the regulatory activity covered by the rules since the last evaluation.  
The dates of previous evaluations of the rules occurred in 1979 and 2003.  
EGLE is addressing longstanding operation and maintenance issues with collection systems by  
proposing a permit, facility classification, and corresponding operator certification. The additional  
oversight, operation, and maintenance requirements for the collection systems will provide more  
protection for public health and the environment and assist the receiving wastewater treatment plants  
to better manage their systems to meet permit requirements.  
The proposed RTB facility classification and corresponding operator certification requirement will  
improve the quality of operation of RTB facilities by focusing operator knowledge on operational  
situations and processes unique to these types of facilities. Most RTB facilities require operator  
certification at the Class D level or with industrial wastewater treatment certifications that reflect the  
waste treatment at those systems. Neither of those certification processes accurately reflect the  
nature of an RTB facility. The proposed RTB certification will allow those operators to become  
properly certified with relevant information and continuing education requirements.  
In 2003, a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling invalidated R 299.2933(4), 1954 ACS 85, as amended,  
promulgated pursuant to Part 41 [Subrule 33(4)]. Specifically, the court determined that EGLE (then  
the Department of Environmental Quality) could not require persons who are requesting a permit for  
constructing and operating a sewerage system designed for public use to first obtain a resolution from  
the local unit of government (LUG) as a guarantee that the LUG would assume responsibility for the  
operation and maintenance of the system in the event that the private owner fails to perform these  
functions. The court further found that EGLE does not have the statutory authority to force the LUG to  
pass the resolution. A guiding principle of Part 41 is intended to protect property owners that depend  
on another person for sewage disposal. After the court ruling, EGLE established an alternative  
process (WRD Policy and Procedure  
No. WRD-010) to ensure that sewerage systems governed under Part 41 are continually operated  
MCL 24.239  
RFR-Page 4  
and maintained to avoid the unauthorized discharge of raw or untreated sewage into the waters of the  
state and ensure that sewage is not potentially prejudicial to public health. The proposed rule  
revisions include language for meeting these requirements and will streamline permitting for such  
systems by setting clear expectations in rule for privately owned, publicly used systems so that they  
may plan accordingly when submitting applications for Part 41 Permits.  
Additionally, rule revisions for addressing revisions to approved plans so that the rule is consistent  
with the statute are proposed. There are discrepancies as to how minor revisions are handled; the  
statute requires approval for minor revisions to plans while the existing rules allow for minor revisions  
without EGLE approval.  
16. Are there any changes or developments since implementation that demonstrate there is no  
continued need for the rules, or any portion of the rules?  
EGLE is proposing to rescind R 299.2972, R 299.2973, and R 299.2974 due to duplicative language  
that exists in the Administrative Procedures Act, 1969 PA 306, as amended; the administrative rules  
pertaining to the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules; and additional rules pertaining  
to contested cases and declaratory rulings.  
17. Is there an applicable decision record (as defined in MCL 24.203(6) and required by MCL  
24.239(2))? If so, please attach the decision record.  
No  
Based on the information provided in this RFR, MOAHR concludes that there are sufficient policy and legal  
bases for approving the RFR. The RFR satisfies the requirements of the administrative procedures act of  
1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, and Executive Reorganization Order No. 2019-1, MCL 324.99923.  
MCL 24.239  
;