Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; State Implementation Plan Revision for Burlington Industries, Clarksville, VA, 66679-66681 [E6-19272]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
that a party wishes to dispute a genuine
issue of material fact to be resolved in
the consideration of the Postal Service’s
request, that party shall file with the
Commission a request for a hearing
within the time allowed in the notice of
proceeding. The request for a hearing
shall state with specificity the fact or
facts set forth in the Postal Service’s
filing that the party disputes, and when
possible, what the party believes to be
the fact or facts and the evidence it
intends to provide in support of its
position. The Commission will hold
hearings on a Postal Service request
made pursuant to this subpart when it
determines that there is a genuine issue
of material fact to be resolved, and that
a hearing is needed to resolve that issue.
§ 3001.171
[Amended]
9. In § 3001.171, remove paragraph (b)
and remove the designation for
paragraph (a).
I
§ 3001.173
[Amended]
10. In § 3001.173, revise paragraphs
(b), (d), and (e) to read as follows:
I
the fact or facts and the evidence it
intends to provide in support of its
position. The Commission will hold
hearings on a Postal Service request
made pursuant to this subpart when it
determines that there is a genuine issue
of material fact to be resolved, and that
a hearing is needed to resolve that issue.
I 11. Revise § 3001.174 to read as
follows:
§ 3001.174
Rule for decision.
The Commission will issue a decision
on the Postal Service’s proposed
provisional service in accordance with
the policies of the Postal Reorganization
Act, but will not recommend
modification of any feature of the
proposed service which the Postal
Service has identified in accordance
with § 3001.172(a)(3). The purpose of
this subpart is to allow for consideration
of proposed provisional services within
90 days, consistent with the procedural
due process rights of interested persons.
§ 3001.181
[Amended]
12. In § 3001.181, remove paragraph
(b), remove the designation of paragraph
(a).
*
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
§ 3001.173 Procedures—expedition of
public notice and procedural schedule.
[FR Doc. E6–19289 Filed 11–15–06; 8:45 am]
I
*
*
*
*
(b) Persons who are interested in
participating in a proceeding to consider
Postal Service requests to establish a
provisional service may intervene
pursuant to Subpart A of the rules of
practice. Parties may withdraw from a
proceeding by filing a notice with the
Secretary of the Commission.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) When the Postal Service files a
request under the provisions of this
subpart, it shall on that same day file a
notice that briefly describes its proposal.
Such notice shall indicate on its first
page that it is a notice of a Request for
Establishment of a Provisional Service
to be considered under §§ 3001.171
through 3001.176.
(e) Within 5 days after receipt of a
Postal Service request under the
provisions of this subpart, the
Commission shall issue a notice of
proceeding and provide interested
persons a minimum of 15 days after
filing of the Postal Service request
within which to intervene. In the event
that a party wishes to dispute a genuine
issue of material fact to be resolved in
the consideration of the Postal Service’s
request, that party shall file with the
Commission a request for a hearing
within the time allowed in the notice of
proceeding. The request for a hearing
shall state with specificity the fact or
facts set forth in the Postal Service’s
filing that the party disputes, and when
possible, what the party believes to be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Nov 15, 2006
Jkt 211001
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66679
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 https://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
https://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:
ADDRESSES:
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
E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM
16NOR1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
66680
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Nov 15, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM
16NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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 sourcespecific 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.
I
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart VV—Virginia
§ 52.2420
[Amended]
2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(d) is amended by removing the entry
for Burlington Industries.
I
[FR Doc. E6–19272 Filed 11–15–06; 8:45 am]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Nov 15, 2006
Jkt 211001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0497; FRL–8243–2]
RIN 2060–AN96
Standards of Performance for
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional
Steam Generating Units
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: New source performance
standards (NSPS) limiting emissions of,
among other pollutants, nitrogen oxides
(NOX) from industrial-commercialinstitutional steam generating units
capable of combusting more than 100
million British thermal units (Btu) per
hour were promulgated on November
25, 1986. The standards limit NOX
emissions from the combustion of fossil
fuels either solely or in combination
with other fuels or wastes. The
standards include provisions for the
establishment of facility-specific NOX
standards for steam generating units
which simultaneously combust fossil
fuel and chemical byproduct/waste
under certain conditions. This
amendment promulgates a facilityspecific NOX standard for a steam
generating unit which simultaneously
combusts fossil fuel and chemical
byproduct offgas at the Innovene USA
LLC facility located in Lima, Ohio.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective on January 16, 2007 without
further notice, unless EPA receives
material adverse comments by
December 18, 2006, unless a hearing is
requested by November 27, 2006. If a
timely hearing request is submitted, the
hearing will be held on December 1,
2006 and we must receive written
comments on or before January 2, 2007.
If EPA receives such comments, it will
publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register indicating the
amendment is being withdrawn due to
adverse comments.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2006–0497, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–1741.
• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66681
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
total of two copies.
• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, U.S.
EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Room B102, Washington, DC. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
We request that a separate copy also
be sent to the contact person listed
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–
0497. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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 docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC,
E:\FR\FM\16NOR1.SGM
16NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66679-66681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19272]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://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 https://
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
