Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permits for Midwest Generation Romeoville and Joliet Stations, 42062-42063 [05-14405]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
42062
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Notices
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the
Agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Burden Statement: Burden means the
total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install,
and utilize technology and systems for
the purposes of collecting, validating,
and verifying information, processing
and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with
any previously applicable instructions
and requirements; train personnel to be
able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. Burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
average 74 hours per response. Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal
agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
Respondents/Affected Entities:
Construction and demolition waste
landfill owners/operators and State
Agencies.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
183.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:
13,581 hours.
Estimated Total Annualized Capital,
O&M Cost Burden: $938.
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:42 Jul 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
Send comments on the Agency’s need
for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including through
the use of automated collection
techniques to the addresses listed above.
Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1745.05 and
OMB Control No. 2050–0154 in any
correspondence.
Dated: July 5, 2005.
Matt Hale,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 05–14404 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–7941–8]
Regulatory Pilot Projects (Project XL);
Correction
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice; correction.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency published a document in the
Federal Register of June 8, 2005
concerning request for comments on
Regulatory Pilot Projects. Within the
document are several citations of an
erroneous Agency form number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doug Heimlich, (202) 566–2234.
Correction
In the Federal Register of June 8,
2005, in 70 FR Doc. 05–11383, on page
33472, in the third column, replace all
citations of ‘‘EPA ICR No. 1755.06’’ with
the following:
EPA ICR No. 1755.07.
Dated: June 14, 2005.
Gerald J. Filbin,
Director, Innovative Pilots Division, Office of
Policy, Economics and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 05–14398 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[Regional Docket Nos. V–2004–3, –4, IL226–
1, FRL–7942–2]
Clean Air Act Operating Permit
Program; Petitions for Objection to
State Operating Permits for Midwest
Generation Romeoville and Joliet
Stations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Notice of final orders on
petitions to object to two State operating
permits.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This document announces
that the EPA Administrator has
responded to two citizen petitions
asking EPA to object to operating
permits proposed by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) to two facilities. Specifically, the
Administrator has partially granted and
partially denied each of the petitions
submitted by the Chicago Legal Clinic
on behalf of Citizens Against Ruining
the Environment to object to the
proposed operating permits for the
Midwest Generation Romeoville and
Joliet stations.
Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act (Act), Petitioner may seek
judicial review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit of those portions of the petitions
which EPA denied. Any petition for
review shall be filed within 60 days
from the date this notice appears in the
Federal Register, pursuant to section
307 of the Act.
ADDRESSES: You may review copies of
the final orders, the petitions, and other
supporting information at the EPA
Region 5 Office, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. If
you wish to examine these documents,
you should make an appointment at
least 24 hours before visiting day.
Additionally, the final orders for the
Midwest Generation Romeoville and
Joliet stations are available
electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/
region07/programs/artd/air/title5/
petitiondb/petitiondb2004.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permitting
Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, EPA, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 886–
4447.
The Act
affords EPA a 45-day period to review,
and object to as appropriate, operating
permits proposed by State permitting
authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act
authorizes any person to petition the
EPA Administrator within 60 days after
the expiration of the EPA review period
to object to State operating permits if
EPA has not done so. Petitions must be
based only on objections to the permit
that were raised with reasonable
specificity during the public comment
period provided by the State, unless the
petitioner demonstrates that it was
impracticable to raise these issues
during the comment period or the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Notices
grounds for the issues arose after this
period.
On January 26, 2004, the EPA
received from the Chicago Legal Clinic
petitions requesting that EPA object to
the proposed title V operating permits
for the Midwest Generation Romeoville
and Joliet stations. The petitions raise
issues regarding the permit application,
the permit issuance process, and the
permits themselves. Chicago Legal
Clinic asserts that the permits: (1) Fail
to comply with State and Federal
requirements; (2) allow excess
emissions during startup and
malfunction, contrary to U.S. EPA
policy; (3) contain conditions that are
not practically enforceable; (4) allow the
plant to continue to operate in a manner
which causes severe health impacts on
the surrounding communities; (5)
contain numerous typographical errors,
mistakes, and omissions; (6) are legally
inadequate because they do not impose
enforceable schedules to remedy noncompliance; and (7) fail to address
mercury and other hazardous air
pollutants.
On June 24, 2005, the Administrator
issued orders partially granting and
partially denying the petitions. The
orders explain the reasons behind EPA’s
conclusion that the IEPA must reopen
the permits to: (1) Address Petitioner’s
significant comments; (2) include
periodic monitoring in compliance with
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B); (3) remove the
note stating that compliance with the
carbon monoxide limit is inherent; (4)
explain in the statement of basis how it
determined in advance that the
permittee had met the requirements of
the Illinois State Implementation Plan
(SIP) or to specify in the permit that
continued operation during malfunction
or breakdown will be authorized on a
case-by-case basis if the source meets
the SIP criteria; (5) remove language
which is not required by the underlying
applicable requirement or explain in the
permit or statement of basis how this
language implements the underlying
applicable requirement; (6) remove
‘‘established startup procedures,’’
include the startup procedures in the
permit, or include minimum elements
of the startup procedures that would
‘‘affirmatively demonstrate that all
reasonable efforts have been made to
minimize startup emissions, duration of
individual startups and frequency of
startups;’’ (7) require the owner or
operator of the sources to report to the
agency ‘‘immediately’’ or explain how
the phrase ‘‘as soon as possible’’ meets
the requirements of the SIP; (8) remove
‘‘reasonably’’ and ‘‘reasonable’’ from
relevant permit terms or define or
provide criteria to determine
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:42 Jul 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
‘‘reasonably’’ and ‘‘reasonable’’ that
meet the requirements of the SIP; (9)
remove the term ‘‘reasonable’’ from the
relevant permit conditions in
accordance with the language in part 70,
section 504 of the Clean Air Act or
section 39.5 of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act; (10)
remove the ability to waive the testing
requirements or explain how such a
waiver would meet the requirements of
part 70; (11) define ‘‘extraordinary
circumstances’’ in a manner consistent
with the requirements of the SIP or
remove the language from the permit;
(12) remove ‘‘summary of compliance’’
from the permit or clarify the term such
that the reader understands what a
‘‘summary of compliance’’ must contain
and how the summary relates to the
control measures; (13) include
appropriate prompt reporting
requirements or explain how and where
the permit meets the prompt reporting
requirements of part 70; and (14) insert
‘‘which’’ after ‘‘any new process
emission unit’’ to be consistent with the
SIP. The orders also explain the reasons
for denying Chicago Legal Clinic’s
remaining claims.
Dated: July 6, 2005.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05–14405 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Change in Bank Control Notices;
Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank
Holding Companies
The notificants listed below have
applied under the Change in Bank
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and
§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12
CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank
holding company. The factors that are
considered in acting on the notices are
set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12
U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for
immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices
also will be available for inspection at
the office of the Board of Governors.
Interested persons may express their
views in writing to the Reserve Bank
indicated for that notice or to the offices
of the Board of Governors. Comments
must be received not later than August
5, 2005.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
(Andre Anderson, Vice President) 1000
Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia
30303:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42063
1. Richard Todd Profitt, Sevierville,
Tennessee; to act as a substitute trustee
and vote the shares of Tennessee State
Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly
control Tennessee State Bank, both of
Pigeon Forge, Tennessee.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, July 18, 2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05–14458 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–S
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Formations of, Acquisitions by, and
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The companies listed in this notice
have applied to the Board for approval,
pursuant to the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)
(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part
225), and all other applicable statutes
and regulations to become a bank
holding company and/or to acquire the
assets or the ownership of, control of, or
the power to vote shares of a bank or
bank holding company and all of the
banks and nonbanking companies
owned by the bank holding company,
including the companies listed below.
The applications listed below, as well
as other related filings required by the
Board, are available for immediate
inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank
indicated. The application also will be
available for inspection at the offices of
the Board of Governors. Interested
persons may express their views in
writing on the standards enumerated in
the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the
proposal also involves the acquisition of
a nonbanking company, the review also
includes whether the acquisition of the
nonbanking company complies with the
standards in section 4 of the BHC Act
(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise
noted, nonbanking activities will be
conducted throughout the United States.
Additional information on all bank
holding companies may be obtained
from the National Information Center
website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received at the Reserve Bank
indicated or the offices of the Board of
Governors not later than August 15,
2005.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
(Richard Walker, Community Affairs
Officer) P.O. Box 55882, Boston,
Massachusetts 02106-2204:
1. Florence Bancorp, MHC Florence,
Massachuetts; to become a bank holding
company by acquiring 100 percent of
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42062-42063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14405]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[Regional Docket Nos. V-2004-3, -4, IL226-1, FRL-7942-2]
Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection
to State Operating Permits for Midwest Generation Romeoville and Joliet
Stations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final orders on petitions to object to two State
operating permits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces that the EPA Administrator has
responded to two citizen petitions asking EPA to object to operating
permits proposed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)
to two facilities. Specifically, the Administrator has partially
granted and partially denied each of the petitions submitted by the
Chicago Legal Clinic on behalf of Citizens Against Ruining the
Environment to object to the proposed operating permits for the Midwest
Generation Romeoville and Joliet stations.
Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act),
Petitioner may seek judicial review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit of those portions of the petitions
which EPA denied. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days
from the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to
section 307 of the Act.
ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final orders, the petitions,
and other supporting information at the EPA Region 5 Office, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. If you wish to examine
these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours
before visiting day. Additionally, the final orders for the Midwest
Generation Romeoville and Joliet stations are available electronically
at: https://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/
petitiondb2004.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permitting
Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312)
886-4447.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to
review, and object to as appropriate, operating permits proposed by
State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes
any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the
expiration of the EPA review period to object to State operating
permits if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on
objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity
during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the
petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues
during the comment period or the
[[Page 42063]]
grounds for the issues arose after this period.
On January 26, 2004, the EPA received from the Chicago Legal Clinic
petitions requesting that EPA object to the proposed title V operating
permits for the Midwest Generation Romeoville and Joliet stations. The
petitions raise issues regarding the permit application, the permit
issuance process, and the permits themselves. Chicago Legal Clinic
asserts that the permits: (1) Fail to comply with State and Federal
requirements; (2) allow excess emissions during startup and
malfunction, contrary to U.S. EPA policy; (3) contain conditions that
are not practically enforceable; (4) allow the plant to continue to
operate in a manner which causes severe health impacts on the
surrounding communities; (5) contain numerous typographical errors,
mistakes, and omissions; (6) are legally inadequate because they do not
impose enforceable schedules to remedy non-compliance; and (7) fail to
address mercury and other hazardous air pollutants.
On June 24, 2005, the Administrator issued orders partially
granting and partially denying the petitions. The orders explain the
reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the IEPA must reopen the permits
to: (1) Address Petitioner's significant comments; (2) include periodic
monitoring in compliance with 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B); (3) remove the
note stating that compliance with the carbon monoxide limit is
inherent; (4) explain in the statement of basis how it determined in
advance that the permittee had met the requirements of the Illinois
State Implementation Plan (SIP) or to specify in the permit that
continued operation during malfunction or breakdown will be authorized
on a case-by-case basis if the source meets the SIP criteria; (5)
remove language which is not required by the underlying applicable
requirement or explain in the permit or statement of basis how this
language implements the underlying applicable requirement; (6) remove
``established startup procedures,'' include the startup procedures in
the permit, or include minimum elements of the startup procedures that
would ``affirmatively demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been
made to minimize startup emissions, duration of individual startups and
frequency of startups;'' (7) require the owner or operator of the
sources to report to the agency ``immediately'' or explain how the
phrase ``as soon as possible'' meets the requirements of the SIP; (8)
remove ``reasonably'' and ``reasonable'' from relevant permit terms or
define or provide criteria to determine ``reasonably'' and
``reasonable'' that meet the requirements of the SIP; (9) remove the
term ``reasonable'' from the relevant permit conditions in accordance
with the language in part 70, section 504 of the Clean Air Act or
section 39.5 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act; (10) remove
the ability to waive the testing requirements or explain how such a
waiver would meet the requirements of part 70; (11) define
``extraordinary circumstances'' in a manner consistent with the
requirements of the SIP or remove the language from the permit; (12)
remove ``summary of compliance'' from the permit or clarify the term
such that the reader understands what a ``summary of compliance'' must
contain and how the summary relates to the control measures; (13)
include appropriate prompt reporting requirements or explain how and
where the permit meets the prompt reporting requirements of part 70;
and (14) insert ``which'' after ``any new process emission unit'' to be
consistent with the SIP. The orders also explain the reasons for
denying Chicago Legal Clinic's remaining claims.
Dated: July 6, 2005.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05-14405 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
