	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

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

	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,
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 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).

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-2007-1139.  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 

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   HYPERLINK "mailto:shandruk.irene@epa.gov" 
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 ( 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 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.

IV.   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 (Public Law 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 .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 [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 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52  

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

                                                                        
                                 /s/

__April 3, 2008_______________    			__________________________

Dated:                            				William T. Wisniewski, Acting     
                         							Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52 - [AMENDED] 

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

2. In ( 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:

( 52.2420  	Identification of plan.

*   *  *   *  *	

(d) * * * 

	EPA-APPROVED SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Source Name	Permit/order or registration number	State effective date	EPA
approval date	40 CFR part 52 citation



*     *     *     *     *    *     *

Kraft Foods Global, Inc. – Richmond Bakery	Registration No. 50703
9/19/07	[Insert Federal Register publication date] [Insert page number
where the document begins]	52.2420(d)(8)



*    *     *     *      *

 PAGE   

 PAGE  9 

