Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Mondelēz Global LLC, Inc.-Richmond Bakery Located in Henrico County, Virginia, 23917-23920 [2014-09658]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations of the substance of and the circumstances attending the communication, so that the Commission will be able to take appropriate action. (4) Commission decision-making personnel who receive, or who make or knowingly cause to be made, communications prohibited by this paragraph shall place on the public record of the proceeding: (i) All such written communications; (ii) Memoranda stating the substance of all such oral communications; and (iii) All written responses, and memoranda stating the substance of all oral responses, to the materials described in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii) of this section. (5) Requests for an opportunity to rebut, on the record, any facts or contentions contained in an ex parte communication which have been placed on the public record of the proceeding pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of this section may be filed in writing with the Commission. The Commission will grant such requests only where it determines that the dictates of fairness so require. Generally, in lieu of actually receiving rebuttal material, the Commission will direct that the alleged factual assertion and the proposed rebuttal be disregarded in arriving at a decision. * * * * * Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2014–09797 Filed 4–28–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 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 Mondelez Global LLC, Inc.—Richmond Bakery Located in Henrico County, Virginia Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: 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 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:55 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 ¯ (VOC) emissions from the Mondelez ¯ Global LLC, Inc. (Mondelez)— 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 previouslylisted 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 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 23917 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 ¯ Mondelez—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 E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 23918 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonCTG RACT was Kraft Foods (now ¯ Mondelez). 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 Mondelez 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, Mondelez made modifications to its process that necessitated revisions to its RACT permit. The most notable change is in VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:55 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 the ownership of the company which changed from Kraft Food Global Inc. to ¯ Mondelez Global LLC, Inc. The revised permit consists of 20 conditions and changes that were made throughout the permit. They include the following ¯ changes: Mondelez 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 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 § 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 E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 ¯ Mondelez 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 • 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. sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 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.); 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 nonagency 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:55 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 23919 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 ¯ Mondelez 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 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 removing the entry for Kraft Foods Global, Inc.—Richmond Bakery and adding an entry for ¯ Mondelez Global LLC, Inc.—Richmond Bakery at the end of the table. The added text reads as follows: ■ § 52.2420 * Identification of plan. * * (d) * * * E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1 * * 23920 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS State effective date Source name Permit/order or registration No. * * ¯ Mondelez Global LLC, Inc.—Richmond Bakery. * * Registration No. 50703 ............................ * * * * * [FR Doc. 2014–09658 Filed 4–28–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MM Docket No. 00–168; DA 14–464] Television Broadcasters; Online Political File Deadline Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Compliance date deadline. AGENCY: The Media Bureau reminds television stations not affiliated with the top four national networks and those licensed to markets below the top 50 that they must begin to comply with the online political file rules on July 1, 2014. SUMMARY: Effective April 29, 2014. Deadline for compliance is July 1, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Matthews, Media Bureau, Policy Division, 202–418–2154, or email at kim.matthews@fcc.gov. DATES: This is a summary of the Media Bureau’s document in MM Docket No. 00–168, DA 14–464, released on April 4, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:55 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 * 2/14/14 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). 1. In the Second Report and Order in MM Docket Nos. 00–168 and 00–44, 77 FR 27631 (May 11, 2012),1 the Commission required broadcast television stations to post their public files online in a Commission-hosted database rather than maintaining the files locally at their main studios.2 With respect to political file documents that must be maintained in the public file, stations affiliated with the top four national networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox) licensed to serve communities in the top 50 Designated Market Areas (DMAs) were required to post political file documents online beginning August 2, 2012, but all other stations were exempted from posting their political file documents to their online public file until July 1, 2014.3 2. This document is a reminder to television stations not affiliated with the top four national networks and those licensed to markets below the top 50 that they must begin to comply on July 1 Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations, Extension of the Filing Requirement for Children’s Television Programming Report, Second Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 4535 (2012) (‘‘Second Report and Order’’). 2 All permittees and licensees of a ‘‘TV or Class A TV station’’ in the commercial and noncommercial educational broadcast services must maintain a public inspection file, including a political file. See 47 CFR 73.3526(a)(2) and 73.3527(a)(2). 3 See Second Report and Order, 77 FR at 27632, paragraph.3. On August 2, 2012, television stations that were not exempt were required to start uploading documents to the online file on a goingforward basis. With respect to public file documents other than political file material, stations were given six months, until February 4, 2013, to complete the process of uploading their existing public file. Id. at 4580–81, paragraph. 98. See also Television Broadcast Stations Reminded of their Online Public Inspection File Obligations, Public Notice, MM Docket Nos. 00–168 and 00–44, DA 12–2003, rel. Dec. 11, 2012. Stations are not required to upload their political files as they existed prior to the relevant deadline to the online database; rather, they are required only to upload new political file content on a going-forward basis. See Second Report and Order, 77 FR at 27632, paragraph 2 and at 27637, paragraph 33. Existing political file documents not required to be uploaded to the online file must continue to be maintained at the station, however, until the end of the twoyear retention period. See 47 CFR 73.3526(e)(6) and 73.3527(e)(5). PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 EPA approval date * 4/29/14 [Insert page number where the document begins]. 40 CFR part 52 citation * 52.2420(d)(13). 1, 2014.4 As noted above, on that date stations that are currently exempt must start uploading new political file material on a going-forward basis.5 These stations are not required to upload political files placed in their public file prior to July 1, 2014; however, they are required to retain those documents at the station until the end of the two-year retention period.6 Given that these television stations have already been required to use the online public file for documents other than the political file since August 2, 2012, we do not expect them to have difficulty determining how to upload new political file documents to the online file. 3. Members of the public and broadcasters will find answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on 4 In the Second Report and Order, the Commission stated that, by July 1, 2013, the Media Bureau would issue a Public Notice seeking comment on the impact of the online posting requirement for the political file so that the Commission can consider whether any changes should be made to the requirement before it takes effect for other stations. See Second Report and Order, 77 FR at 27632, paragraph 3. Consistent with this commitment, the Media Bureau issued a Public Notice on June 25, 2013 seeking comment on, among other things, the experience of stations currently subject to the online political file requirement in posting their political files to the Commission-hosted database and the ability of stations that are currently exempt from the political posting requirement to comply with the July 1, 2014 deadline. Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Online Political File and Petition for Reconsideration Filed by the Television Station Group, Public Notice, MM Docket No. 00–168, DA 13–1440, 78 FR 41014, rel. June 25, 2013. The Media Bureau also sought comment on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Television Station Group which requests that the Commission reconsider the online political file requirement in the Second Report and Order. The Commission has not acted upon that Public Notice, or in any way altered the online political file requirement or the July 1, 2014 deadline for compliance by television stations that are currently exempt. Therefore, the requirement as codified—the July 1, 2014 compliance deadline for stations not subject to the 2012 deadline—still stands. 47 CFR 73.3526(b)(3). 5 We also remind all television broadcasters subject to the political file rules that documents must be placed in, or uploaded to, the file as soon as possible. Section 73.1943(c) of the Commission’s rules provides that records ‘‘shall be placed in the political file as soon as possible and shall be retained for a period of two years. As soon as possible means immediately absent unusual circumstances.’’ 47 CFR 73.1943(c). 6 See, supra, note 3. E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM 29APR1

Agencies

[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