Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0059-0007
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-11-16T05:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

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

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

                                               Clarksville, Virginia

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  This Agreement has been superseded by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).

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date 30 days
from date of publication].

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 www.regulations.gov website.   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 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:  

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
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 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
(Public Law 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 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 [insert date 60 days 

from date of publication of this document in the Federal Register]. 
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.

                        __________/s/_________________    

Dated:        11/03/06                    				Donald S. Welsh,          
                      								Regional Administrator,

                                  						Region III.



40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52 - [AMENDED] 

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

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

Subpart VV( Virginia

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

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2