Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0059-0006
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; State Implementation Plan Revision for Burlington Industries, Clarksville, VA
Posted Date: 2006-11-16T05:00Z

[Federal Register: November 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 221)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 66679-66681]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16no06-13]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0059; FRL-8242-4]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; State Implementation Plan Revision for Burlington Industries, 
Clarksville, VA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision consists of 
the removal of a Consent Agreement (Agreement) currently in the SIP for 
the control of sulfur dioxide emissions from Burlington Industries 
located in Clarksville, Virginia. This Agreement has been superseded by 
a federally enforceable state operating permit that imposes operating 
restrictions on the facility's boilers and the shutdown of the 
remainder of the facility. This action is being taken under the Clean 
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on December 18, 
2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0059. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 

electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 
confidential business information (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 through http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy for public inspection 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: Sharon McCauley, (215) 814-3376, or by 
e-mail at mccauley.sharon@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On July 11, 2006 (71 FR 39330), EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed 
approval of the removal of an Agreement from the Virginia SIP. The 
Agreement was written for the control of emissions of sulfur dioxide 
from the Burlington Industries facility located in Clarksville, 
Mecklenburg County, Virginia. This Agreement has been superseded by a 
federally enforceable state operating permit dated May 17, 2004, which 
imposes operating restrictions on the facility's boilers and the 
subsequent shutdown of the remainder of the facility. The formal SIP 
revision was submitted by Virginia on July 12, 2004.
    Other specific requirements of the SIP revision for Burlington 
Industries, Clarksville, Virginia and the rationale for EPA's proposed 
action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No 
public comments were received on the NPR.

II. 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

[[Page 66680]]

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 Sec.  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 Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act is likewise 
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the removal of the Consent Agreement for 
Burlington Industries, Clarksville, Virginia as a revision to the 
Virginia SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 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.). 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). This rule also does not 
have tribal implications because it will 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). 
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 
not 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). 
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. 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. 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.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules

[[Page 66681]]

of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not 
substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 
U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding 
today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular 
applicability establishing source-specific requirements for one named 
source.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 16, 2007. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action, to approve the removal of the Consent 
Agreement for Burlington Industries, Clarksville, Virginia, may not be 
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.

(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: November 3, 2006.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

Sec.  52.2420  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing 
the entry for Burlington Industries.

[FR Doc. E6-19272 Filed 11-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P