[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23917-23920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09658]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0179; FRL-9910-04-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From
Mondel[emacr]z Global LLC, Inc.--Richmond Bakery Located in Henrico
County, Virginia
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia's
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions consist of a Federally
enforceable state operating permit containing terms and conditions for
the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the
Mondel[emacr]z Global LLC, Inc. (Mondel[emacr]z)--Richmond Bakery
located in Henrico County, Virginia. EPA is approving these revisions
for the purpose of meeting the requirements for reasonably available
control technology (RACT) in order to implement the maintenance plan
for the Richmond 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) maintenance area in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on June 30, 2014 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse written comment by May 29, 2014. If EPA
receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that
the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0179 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Email: [email protected].
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0179, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, 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-
2014-0179. 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 email. The
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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
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: Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 14, 2014, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of a Federally
enforceable state operating permit containing terms and conditions for
the control of VOC emissions from the Mondel[emacr]z--Richmond Bakery
located in Henrico County, Virginia. The submittal is for the purpose
of meeting the requirements for RACT in order to implement the
maintenance plan for the Richmond 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance
area.
RACT is the lowest emission limit that a particular source is
capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available with the consideration of technological and
economic feasibility. The VOC RACT regulations that apply to source
categories of VOCs are generally those VOC RACT regulations adopted by
a state based upon Control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents issued
by EPA. Major sources of VOCs that are
[[Page 23918]]
subject to RACT, but that are not covered by a regulation adopted by a
state pursuant to a CTG are referred to as non-CTG VOC RACT sources.
When the Richmond area was originally designated as an ozone
nonattainment area under the 1-hour standard, it was classified as
moderate and thereby had to meet the non-CTG RACT requirements of
section 182 of the CAA. As part of the 1-hour ozone attainment plan,
one of the sources located in the area identified as being subject to
non-CTG RACT was Kraft Foods (now Mondel[emacr]z). Cookies and crackers
are produced at this plant. The sources of VOC emissions at this plant
are ovens for baking the dough, and oil treatment facilities.
The Mondel[emacr]z bakery located in Henrico County, Virginia
underwent RACT analysis, and a Federally enforceable state operating
permit was issued to the facility, which became effective on April 24,
1991. The permit was then submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, and
approved into the Commonwealth's SIP on March 6, 1992 (57 FR 8080).
On September 22, 2004, under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the
Richmond area was classified as a marginal nonattainment area. On
September 20, 2006, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ) formally submitted a request to redesignate the Richmond area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On
September 25, 2006, the VADEQ submitted a maintenance plan for the
Richmond area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment. The
redesignation request and maintenance plan were approved on June 1,
2007 (72 FR 30485). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA stipulates that for
an area to be redesignated, EPA must approve a maintenance plan that
meets the requirements of section 175A. All applicable nonattainment
area requirements remain in place. The plan includes a demonstration
that emissions will remain within the 2005 levels for a 10-year period
by keeping in place key elements of the current Federal and state
regulatory programs, including case-by-case RACT requirements for the
area. Because the Richmond area in which this facility is located has
continuously been classified as either a nonattainment or a maintenance
area, the RACT requirements remain in effect.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
In 2012, Mondel[emacr]z made modifications to its process that
necessitated revisions to its RACT permit. The most notable change is
in the ownership of the company which changed from Kraft Food Global
Inc. to Mondel[emacr]z Global LLC, Inc. The revised permit consists of
20 conditions and changes that were made throughout the permit. They
include the following changes: Mondel[emacr]z needed to update the
aging VOC emission control equipment for Oven 1 from a catalytic
thermal oxidizer (CTO) to a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) which
maintains the same VOC emissions control efficiency of 95 percent (%);
propane is no longer listed as a fuel option and instead natural gas is
the only fuel option available for Ovens 1 through 9; and references to
sponge dough and straight dough were changed to yeast dough and non-
yeast dough respectively. Also, the criteria for the permanent total
enclosure (PTE) are now in the permit. Previously, the PTE provisions
were found in the appendix. Additionally, certain conditions and
regulatory references have been removed because they are either no
longer applicable or for purposes of providing clarity to the permit.
None of these revisions result in any changes in operations or
emissions increases of VOCs. A more detailed description of the state
submittal and EPA's evaluation can be found in the Technical Support
Document (TSD) with Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0179 prepared in
support of this rulemaking action.
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 that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) 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 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
[[Page 23919]]
enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304
of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit
privilege or immunity law.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia's SIP
that consist of a revised Federally enforceable state operating permit
containing terms and conditions for the control of VOC emissions from
the Mondel[emacr]z Global LLC, Inc.--Richmond Bakery located in Henrico
County, Virginia. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if
adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on June 30,
2014 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by May
29, 2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. EPA may adopt as
final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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 CAA; 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. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 30, 2014. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking.
This rulemaking action approving Virginia's SIP revision consisting
of a Federally enforceable State operating permit containing terms and
conditions for the control of VOC from the Mondel[emacr]z Global LLC,
Inc.--Richmond Bakery locates 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.
Dated: April 11, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTION PLANS
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 removing
the entry for Kraft Foods Global, Inc.--Richmond Bakery and adding an
entry for Mondel[emacr]z Global LLC, Inc.--Richmond Bakery at the end
of the table. The added text reads as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
[[Page 23920]]
EPA-Approved Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit/order or State 40 CFR part 52
Source name registration No. effective date EPA approval date citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Mondel[emacr]z Global LLC, Registration No. 2/14/14 4/29/14 [Insert page 52.2420(d)(13).
Inc.--Richmond Bakery. 50703. number where the document
begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-09658 Filed 4-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P