Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Control of Volatile Organic Compound (VOCs) Emissions From the Kraft Foods Global, Inc.-Bakery Located in Henrico County, VA, 20175-20177 [E8-7876]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 15, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20175-20177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7876]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1139; FRL-8554-6 ]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; Control of Volatile Organic Compound (VOCs) Emissions From 
the Kraft Foods Global, Inc.--Bakery Located in Henrico County, 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 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 approving the revision to the Virginia SIP in 
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on May 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1139. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the 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 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: Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by 
e-mail at shandruk.irene@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5781), EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR 
proposed approval of Virginia's SIP revision for the purpose of meeting 
RACT requirements in order to implement the maintenance plan for the 
Richmond 8-hour ozone maintenance area. The formal SIP revision was 
submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on 
October 29, 2007. Other specific requirements of RACT and the rationale 
for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be 
restated here. No comments were received on the NPR.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is requesting that 
a revision to the Commonwealth's SIP 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 
located in Henrico County, Virginia be approved. The purpose of this 
revision is for meeting the requirements for RACT in order to implement 
the maintenance plan for the Richmond 8-hour ozone maintenance area.

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the 
Commonwealth of Virgina

    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 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

[[Page 20176]]

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 Clean Air Act is likewise 
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
    Other specific requirements of the SIP revision 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.

IV. Final Action

    Virginia has met the requirements 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 located in Henrico County, Virginia, and EPA is 
therefore approving Virginia's revision for the purpose of this 
revision is for meeting the requirements for RACT in order to implement 
the maintenance plan for the Richmond 8-hour ozone maintenance area.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this 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 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 (Pub. L. 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 Clean Air Act; 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.

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. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    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, however, exempts from section 801 the 
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules 
relating to agency management or personnel; and 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). 
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

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 June 16, 2008. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action 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 approving Virginia's SIP revision pertaining 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

[[Page 20177]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: April 3, 2008.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as 
follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding 
the entry for Kraft Food Global, Inc.--Richmond Bakery at the end of 
the table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                    EPA-Approved Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Permit/order or      State effective                          40 CFR part 52
          Source name            registration number         date          EPA approval date        citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Kraft Foods Global, Inc.--      Registration No.                9/19/07  4/15/08 [Insert page      52.2420(d)(8)
 Richmond Bakery.                50703.                                   number where the
                                                                          document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-7876 Filed 4-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P