	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0011; FRL-     ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Virginia; Control of Particulate Matter from Pulp and
Paper Mills

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to approve revisions to a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality.  The revisions pertain to
amendments to an existing regulation to control particulate matter from
pulp and paper mills.  This action is being taken under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES:  Written comments must be received on or before [insert date 30
days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0011 by one of the following methods:

  www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

     B.    E-mail:    HYPERLINK "mailto:cripps.christopher@epa.gov" 
cripps.christopher@epa.gov 

     C.    Mail:  EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0011, Christopher Cripps, Acting
Chief, Air Quality                  and Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region               III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

     D.   Hand Delivery:  At the previously-listed 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-2005-VA-0011.  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 website 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:  LaKeshia N. Robertson, (215) 814-2113,
or by e-mail at robertson.lakeshia@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On June 21, 2005, the Commonwealth of
Virginia submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) plan
for Pulp and Paper mills.  The revisions pertain to the control of
particulate matter (9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13).

I.    Background

The revisions consist of amendments to existing regulations that
implement emission standards for particulate matter from pulp and paper
mills (9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13.)  The changes will
control particulate matter emissions.



II.   Summary of SIP Revision

The following provisions consist of changes to the Commonwealth of
Virginia(s regulation for the control and abatement of air pollution (9
VAC 5, Chapter 40, Article 13, Rule 4-13).  The modifications below are
the subject of this rulemaking. 

Revision 1:  9 VAC 5-40-1660.  Applicability and designation of affected
facilities.  Section A is revised to read as follows:  The affected
facilities in pulp and paper mills to which the provisions of this
article apply are:  Each recovery furnace each smelt dissolving tank,
each lime kiln, each slaker tank, and each kraft wood pulping operation.
 For the purpose of this article, a kraft wood pulping operation is
comprised only of any combination of the following units:  Recovery
furnaces, lime kilns, digester systems, multiple-effect evaporator
systems, condensate stripper systems and smelt dissolving tanks.

Revision 2:  9 VAC 5-40-1670.  Definitions.  Section C:  The definition
of agreement is deleted and the following terms are added:  (1) neutral
sulfite semichemical pulping operation means any operation in which pulp
is produced from wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a solution of
sodium sulfite and sodium bicarbonate, followed by mechanical
defibrating (grinding); (2) new design recovery furnace means a straight
kraft recovery furnace that has both membrane wall or welded wall
construction and emission control designed air systems.  A new design
furnace shall have stated in its contract a TRS performance guarantee or
that it was designed with air pollution control as an objective; (3)
pulp and paper mill means any kraft pulp mill or any paper mill using a
semichemical pulping process; and (4) semichemical pulping process means
any pulp manufacturing process in which the active chemicals of the
liquor used in cooking (digesting) wood chips to their component parts
in a pressurized vessel (digester) are primarily a liquor of sodium
hydroxide and sodium carbonate.  The major difference between all
semichemical techniques and those of kraft and acid sulfite processes is
that only portion of the lignin is removed during the cooking
(digesting), after which the pulp is further reduced by mechanical
disintegration.  In addition, these terms were amended:  Cross recovery
furnace; straight kraft recovery furnace; and total reduced sulfur.

Revision 3:  9 VAC 5-40-1690.  Standard for total reduced sulfur. 
Section A is revised to read as follows:  No owner or other person shall
cause or permit to be discharged into the atmosphere from any kraft wood
pulping operation unit specified below any total reduced sulfur
emissions in excess of the following limits.  Section B is deleted and
replaced by Section C.  In addition, Section D is deleted.

Revision 4:  9 VAC 5-40-1750.  Compliance.  In Section A, the letter A
is deleted and the provision remains the same.  Sections B through D are
deleted and no longer relevant to the regulation.

Revision 5:  9 VAC5-40-1770.  Monitoring.  Section B clarifies that the
owner of a kraft pulp mill shall comply with monitoring provisions by
October 1, 1990.  Section C (1) has been revised to include the language
(Part( to reference information used in the regulation.

Revision 6:  9 VAC5-40-1810.  Permits.  The paragraph which states the
permit requirements shall read as follows:  A permit may be required
prior to beginning any of the activities specified below if the
provisions of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 50 (9 VAC 5-50-10 et seq.) apply.  Owners
contemplating such action should review those provisions and contact the
appropriate regional office for guidance on whether those provisions
apply.  Also, under the numeric rationale for permits, an additional
activity, which is number (6" is added to read as follows:  Operation of
a facility.

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 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.

IV.  Proposed Action

EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia(s SIP submitted on June
21, 2005 to control particulate matter emissions.  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 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)).  This action
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional 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 (Public Law 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 Clean Air
Act.  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 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.  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 proposed rule, pertaining to Virginia(s control of particulate
matter from pulp and paper mills, 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, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

                                                                        
      /s/

________June 22, 2007                          
____________________________

Dated:                                                      Donald S.
Welsh,

                                                                
Regional Administrator,

                                                                 Region
III

 PAGE  11 

