Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules 5781 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug traffic control, 

Narcotics, Prescription drugs. 

Under the authority vested in the 

Attorney General by § 201(a) of the CSA 

(21 U.S.C. 811(a)), and delegated to the 

Administrator of DEA by Department of 

Justice regulations (28 CFR 0.100), and 

redelegated to the Deputy Administrator 

pursuant to 28 CFR 0.104, the Deputy 

Administrator hereby proposes that 21 

CFR part 1308 be amended as follows: 

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 1308 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b) 

unless otherwise noted. 

2. Section 1308.14 is amended by 

redesignating paragraphs (c)(25) through 

(c)(51) as (c)(26) through (c)(52) and 

adding a new paragraph (c)(25) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1308.14 Schedule IV. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(25) indiplon (N-methyl-N-[3-[3-(2- 

thienylcarbonyl)-pyrazolo[1,5- 

a]pyrimidin-7-yl]phenyl]-acetamide)—

2726 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 22, 2008. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–1692 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2007–1139; FRL–8523–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

(VOCs) Emissions From the Kraft 

Foods Global, Inc.—Richmond Bakery 

located in Henrico County, VA 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia on October 

29, 2007. This revision pertains to a 

federally enforceable state operating 

permit containing terms and conditions 

for the control of emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from the 

Kraft Foods Global, Inc.—Richmond 

Bakery located in Henrico County, 

Virginia. The submittal is for the 

purpose of meeting the requirements for 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) in order to implement the 

maintenance plan for the Richmond 8- 

hour ozone maintenance area. EPA is 

proposing to approve the revision to the 

Virginia SIP in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA–

R03–OAR–2007–1139, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2007–1139, 

Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, 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 

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–2007–

10139. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

e-mail 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: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

e-mail at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 29, 2007, the Commonwealth of 

Virginia submitted a revision to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

control of emissions of VOCs from the 

Kraft Foods Global, Inc.—Richmond 

Bakery located in Henrico County, 

Virginia. The submittal is for the 

purpose of meeting the requirements for 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) in order to 

implement the maintenance plan for the 

Richmond 8-hour ozone maintenance 

area. 

I. Background 

RACT is the lowest emission limit 

that a particular source is capable of 

meeting by the application of control 

technology that is reasonably available 

with the consideration of technological 

and economic feasibility. When the 

Richmond area was originally 

designated as an ozone nonattainment 

area under the 1-hour standard, it was 

classified as moderate and thereby had 

to meet the non-CTG RACT 

requirements of section 182 of the CAA. 

As part of the 1-hour ozone attainment 

plan, one of the sources located in the 

area identified as being subject to nonCTG RACT was Nabisco Brands (now 

Kraft Foods). Cookies, crackers, and 

pretzels are produced at this plant. The 

sources of VOC emissions at this plant 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
5782 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

are proof-room, ovens for baking the 

dough, and oil treatment facilities. 

The Kraft Foods Global, Inc. in 

Henrico County, Virginia underwent 

RACT analysis, and a federallyenforceable state operating permit was 

issued to the facility, which became 

effective on April 24, 1991. The permit 

was then submitted to EPA as a SIP 

revision, and approved into the 

Commonwealth’s SIP on March 6, 1992 

(57 FR 8080). 

On September 22, 2004, under the 

new 8-hour ozone standard, the 

Richmond area was classified as a 

marginal nonattainment area. On 

September 20, 2006, the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) formally submitted a request 

to redesignate the Richmond area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. On September 25, 

2006, the VADEQ submitted a 

maintenance plan for the Richmond 

area as a SIP revision to ensure 

continued attainment. The 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan were approved on June 1, 2007 (72 

FR 30485). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA stipulates that for an area to be 

redesignated, EPA must approve a 

maintenance plan that meets the 

requirements of section 175A. All 

applicable nonattainment area 

requirements remain in place. The plan 

includes a demonstration that emissions 

will remain within the 2005 levels for 

a 10-year period by keeping in place key 

elements of the current federal and state 

regulatory programs, including case-bycase RACT requirements for the area. 

Because the Richmond area in which 

this facility is located has continuously 

been classified as either a 

nonattainment or a maintenance area, 

the RACT requirements remain in effect. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

In 2006, Kraft made modifications to 

its process that necessitated the 

following revisions to its RACT permit: 

(1) Kraft will demonstrate compliance 

with RACT for oven #1 by testing the 

catalyst annually to demonstrate that it 

is functioning properly; and (2) 

Compliance with the exhaust gas flow 

through the catalytic oxidizer will be 

achieved by installing and operating the 

fan model with a rated capacity no less 

than 3,500 scfm. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP 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 (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that 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 

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 state 

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’s review of this material 

indicates that Virginia has met the 

requirements for submitting a SIP 

revision concerning a federally 

enforceable state operating permit 

containing terms and conditions for the 

control of emissions of VOCs from the 

Kraft bakery in Henrico County, 

Virginia. This revision request is for the 

purpose of meeting the requirements for 

RACT in order to implement the 

maintenance plan for the Richmond 8- 

hour ozone maintenance area. EPA is 

proposing to approve Virginia’s SIP 

revision concerning this state operating 

permit, which was submitted on 

October 29, 2007. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules 5783 

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 

(Pub. L. 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 SIP 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 SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP 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 action proposing approval of 

Virginia’s SIP revision concerning a 

federally enforceable State operating 

permit containing terms and conditions 

for the control of emissions of VOCs 

from the Kraft Foods Global, Inc.—

Richmond Bakery 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 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Dated: January 23, 2008. 

William T. Wisniewski, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. E8–1777 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R01–RCRA–2007–1171; FRL–8521–7] 

Massachusetts: Final Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts has applied to EPA for 

final authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final 

authorization to Massachusetts. EPA has 

determined that these changes satisfy all 

requirements needed to qualify for final 

authorization, and is authorizing the 

State’s changes through an immediate 

final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–

RCRA–2007–1171, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: biscaia.robin@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (617) 918–0642, to the 

attention of Robin Biscaia 

• Mail: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous 

Waste Unit, EPA New England—Region 

1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 

(CHW), Boston, MA 02114–2023 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Robin Biscaia, 

Hazardous Waste Unit, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, EPA New 

England—Region 1, One Congress 

Street, 11th Floor, (CHW), Boston, MA 

02114–2023. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Office’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

For further information on how to 

submit comments, please see today’s 

immediate final rule published in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, 

EPA New England—Region 1, One 

Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW), 

Boston, MA 02114–2023, telephone 

number: (617) 918–1642; fax number: 

(617) 918–0642, e-mail address: 

biscaia.robin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is authorizing 

these changes by an immediate final 

rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior 

to the immediate final rule because we 

believe this action is not controversial 

and do not expect adverse comments 

that oppose it. We have explained the 

reasons for this authorization in the 

preamble to the immediate final rule. 

Unless we get written adverse 

comments which oppose this 

authorization during the comment 

period, the immediate final rule will 

become effective on the date it 

establishes, and we will not take further 

action on this proposal. If we get 

comments that oppose this action, we 

will withdraw the immediate final rule 

and it will not take immediate effect. 

We will then respond to public 

comments in a later final rule based on 

this proposal. You may not have another 

opportunity for comment. If you want to 

comment on this action, you should do 

so at this time. 

Dated: December 17, 2007. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. E8–1313 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS