Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 72609 

state to revise this provision. The 

revisions proposed in today’s action do 

not address the sections of the 

regulation challenged by the Sierra Club 

in its petition. The revisions proposed 

in today’s action clarify and strengthen 

the Missouri SIP. By removing the 

option for oral notification in 10 CSR 

10–6.050(3)(B), and requiring written 

notification, the Missouri SIP is more 

stringent. The revision in 10 CSR 10– 

6.050(3)(C)2. A. clarifies the notification 

requirements for malfunctions by 

referring to section 10 CSR 10– 

6.050(3)(A). The revision in 10 CSR 10– 

6.050 (3)(C)2.B. clarifies the general 

notification requirements for 

maintenance, startup, or shutdown 

activities by referring to the general 

notification requirements set forth in 10 

CSR 10–6.050(3)(B). 

The revisions proposed in today’s 

action are consistent with CAA 

requirements for SIP provisions and do 

not violate the anti-backsliding 

provisions in section 110(l) or section 

193 of the CAA because they are SIP 

strengthening and do not interfere with 

any applicable requirements concerning 

attainment or reasonable further 

progress nor do they affect control 

measures in effect prior to the 1990 

CAA Amendments related to 

nonattainment areas. Further, these 

proposed revisions are consistent with 

the action proposed by EPA on February 

22, 2013 as mentioned above (78 FR 

12459). 

II. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

The state submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. In addition, as 

explained above, the revision meets the 

substantive SIP requirements of the 

CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

request to amend the Missouri SIP by 

approving the state’s request to amend 

10 CSR 10–6.050 Start-Up, Shutdown, 

and Malfunction to update written 

reporting requirements, correct 

references, and other minor clarifying 

changes. Approval of these revisions 

will ensure consistency between state 

and Federally-approved rules. EPA has 

determined that these changes will not 

relax the SIP or adversely impact air 

emissions. 

We are processing this as a proposed 

action because we are soliciting 

comments on this proposed action. 

Final rulemaking will occur after 

consideration of any comments. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: November 20, 2013. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2013–28947 Filed 12–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0164; FRL–9903–75– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Air Quality Plans for Designated 

Facilities and Pollutants; 

Commonwealth of Virginia; Control of 

Emissions From Existing Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a section plan submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia for sewage 

sludge incineration (SSI) units. The 

section plan contains a state rule for 

existing SSI units and was submitted as 

a result of the March 21, 2011 

promulgation of Federal new source 

performance standards (NSPS) and 

emission guidelines for SSI units. This 

action is being taken under sections of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0164 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: cox.kathleen@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0164, 

Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, Office 

of Air Permits and Toxics, Mailcode 

3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
72610 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0164. 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 www.regulations.gov Web 

site 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Gordon, at (215) 814–2039, or by 

email at gordon.mike@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 129 of the CAA requires EPA 

to establish performance standards and 

emission guidelines for various types of 

new and existing solid waste 

incineration units. Section 129(b)(2) 

requires States to submit to EPA for 

approval section 111(d)/129 plans that 

implement and enforce the promulgated 

emission guidelines. Section 129(b)(3) 

requires EPA to promulgate a federal 

plan (FP) within two years from the date 

on which the emission guidelines, or 

revision to the emission guidelines, is 

promulgated. The FP is applicable to 

affected facilities when the state has 

failed to receive EPA approval of the 

section 111(d)/129 plan. The FP remains 

in effect until the state submits and 

receives EPA approval of its section 

111(d)/129 plan. State submittals under 

CAA sections 111(d) and 129 must be 

consistent with the relevant emission 

guidelines, in this instance 40 CFR part 

60, subpart MMMM, and the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

B and part 62, subpart A. Section 129 

of the CAA regulates air pollutants that 

include organics (dioxins/furans), 

carbon monoxide, metals (cadmium, 

lead, and mercury), hydrogen chloride, 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and 

particulate matter (which includes 

opacity). 

On December 12, 2012, the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) submitted to EPA a formal 

section 111(d)/129 plan for SSI units. 

The submitted section 111(d)/129 plan 

was in response to the March 21, 2011 

promulgation of Federal NSPS and 

emission guidelines requirements for 

SSI units, 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

LLLL and MMMM, respectively (76 FR 

15372). 

II. Summary of Virginia’s Section 

111(d)/129 Plan for Existing SSI Units 

EPA has reviewed the Virginia section 

111(d)/129 plan submittal in the context 

of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts B and MMMM, and part 62, 

subpart A. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

submitted section 111(d)/129 plan 

meets the above-cited requirements. 

Included within the section 111(d)/129 

plan are regulations under the Virginia 

Administrative Code (VAC), specifically 

Article 55 of 9VAC5 Chapter 40, entitled 

‘‘Emission Standards for Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units.’’ A detailed 

explanation of the rationale behind this 

proposed approval is available in the 

Technical Support Document (TSD). 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

Section 111(d)/129 Plan Submittals 

From the Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 72611 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the 

section 111(d)/129 plan, independently 

of any state enforcement effort. In 

addition, citizen enforcement under 

section 304 of the CAA is likewise 

unaffected by this, or any, state audit 

privilege or immunity law. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Virginia section 111(d)/129 plan for SSI 

units submitted pursuant to 40 CFR part 

60, subpart MMMM. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, 

subpart VV to reflect this action. This 

approval is based on the rationale 

previously discussed and in further 

detail in the TSD associated with this 

action. The scope of the proposed 

approval of the section 111(d)/129 plan 

is limited to the provisions of 40 CFR 

parts 60 and 62 for existing SSI units, 

as referenced in the emission 

guidelines, subpart MMMM. 

The EPA Administrator continues to 

retain authority for several tasks, as 

stipulated in 40 CFR § 60.5050 as well 

as the ‘‘Plan Provisions’’ section of 

Virginia’s section 111(d)/129 plan 

submittal. This retention of federal 

authority includes the granting of 

waivers for performance tests. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)). This action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to 

approve 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 

(Public Law 104–4). This proposed rule 

also does not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will 

it 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 approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal requirement, 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This proposed rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it approves a 

state rule implementing a Federal 

standard. 

In reviewing VADEQ’s submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a VADEQ submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a VADEQ 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

VADEQ submission that otherwise 

satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 

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 issuing 

this proposed 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. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 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. This proposed rule 

for the approval of VADEQ’s section 

111(d)/129 plan for SSI units does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Aluminum, 

Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental 

relations, Paper and paper products 

industry, Phosphate, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Sulfur acid plants, Waste 

treatment and disposal. 

Dated: November 15, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–28958 Filed 12–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0678; FRL–9903–34– 

Region 5] 

Proposal for Hospital/Medical/

Infectious Waste Incinerator Negative 

Declaration for Designated Facilities 

and Pollutants: Michigan and 

Wisconsin 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is notifying the public 

that we have received from Michigan 

and Wisconsin negative declarations for 

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste 

Incinerators (HMIWI). The Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality 

submitted on August 9, 2013 a negative 

declaration certifying that there are no 

HMIWI units currently operating in the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS