Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0179-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation: Virginia; Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Mondelez Global LLC, Inc., Richmond Bakery located in Henrico County, VA
Posted Date: 2014-04-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23917-23920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
    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 shandruk.irene@epa.gov.

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