Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Tomahawk, WI, 68161 [E7-23479]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 4, 2007 / Notices 93.118(e)(4). We have described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, preamble starting at 69 FR 40038, and we used the information in these resources while making our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA’s completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA’s ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved. The finding and the response to comments are available at EPA’s conformity Web site: http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ transconf/adequacy.htm. Background Today’s action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA Region 5 sent a letter to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources on November 6, 2007, stating that the 2012 and 2018 MVEBs in Kewaunee County are adequate. Wisconsin submitted the budgets as part of the 8-hour ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan for this area. This submittal was announced on EPA’s conformity website, and received no comments: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm, (once there, click on ‘‘What SIP submissions are currently under EPA adequacy review?’’). The 2012 and 2018 MVEBs, in tons per day (tpd), for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for Kewaunee County are as follows: mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone redesignation and maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. DATES: This finding is effective December 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Life Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section (AR–18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, Maietta.anthony@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. Dated: November 20, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7–23493 Filed 12–3–07; 8:45 am] Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Regional Docket Nos. V–2006–3, FRL– 8501–5] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Tomahawk, WI Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of final order on petition to object to Clean Air Act operating permit. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document announces that the EPA Administrator has 2012 MVEB 2018 MVEB responded to a petition asking EPA to (tpd) (tpd) object to a Clean Air Act (Act) operating VOC .................. 0.43 0.32 permit issued by the Wisconsin NOX ................... 0.80 0.47 Department of Natural Resources. Specifically, the Administrator granted Transportation conformity is required in part and denied in part the petition submitted by David Bender of Garvey by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. McNeil & McGillivray, S.C., on behalf of EPA’s conformity rule requires that the Sierra Club, to object to the transportation plans, programs, and operating permit for Louisiana Pacific projects conform to state air quality Corporation’s Tomahawk, Wisconsin, implementation plans and establishes facility. the criteria and procedures for Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the determining whether or not they do. Act, a petitioner may seek in the United Conformity to a State Implementation States Court of Appeals for the Plan (SIP) means that transportation appropriate circuit judicial review of activities will not produce new air those portions of the petition which quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of EPA denied. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the the national ambient air quality date this notice appears in the Federal standards. Register, pursuant to section 307 of the The criteria by which we determine Act. whether a SIP’s motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity ADDRESSES: You may review a copy of purposes are outlined in 40 CFR the final order, the petition, and other VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:38 Dec 03, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 68161 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 order for the Louisiana Pacific petition is available electronically at: http:// yosemite.epa.gov/r5/ardcorre.nsf/ permits. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits 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. A petition 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 issues during the comment period, or the grounds for the issues arose after this period. On May 15, 2006, the EPA received a petition from David Bender of Garvey McNeil & McGillivray, S.C., on behalf of the Sierra Club, that EPA object to the Title V operating permit for the Louisiana Pacific Tomahawk facility. The petition raised issues regarding: (1) The sufficiency of monitoring for visible and particulate matter emissions; (2) the alleged failure to include federally enforceable applicable State Implementation Plan limits; (3) language that allegedly violates the credible evidence rule; and (4) conditions that allegedly are not practically enforceable. On November 5, 2007, the Administrator issued an order granting in part and denying in part the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA’s conclusion. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: November 20, 2007. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7–23479 Filed 12–3–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 68161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23479]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 [Regional Docket Nos. V-2006-3, FRL-8501-5]


Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to 
State Operating Permit for Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Tomahawk, WI

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition to object to Clean Air Act 
operating permit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document announces that the EPA Administrator has 
responded to a petition asking EPA to object to a Clean Air Act (Act) 
operating permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources. Specifically, the Administrator granted in part and denied 
in part the petition submitted by David Bender of Garvey McNeil & 
McGillivray, S.C., on behalf of the Sierra Club, to object to the 
operating permit for Louisiana Pacific Corporation's Tomahawk, 
Wisconsin, facility.
    Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Act, a petitioner may seek in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit judicial 
review of those portions of the petition 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 a copy of the final order, the petition, 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 order for the Louisiana 
Pacific petition is available electronically at: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/r5/ardcorre.nsf/permits.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits 
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. A petition 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 issues 
during the comment period, or the grounds for the issues arose after 
this period.
    On May 15, 2006, the EPA received a petition from David Bender of 
Garvey McNeil & McGillivray, S.C., on behalf of the Sierra Club, that 
EPA object to the Title V operating permit for the Louisiana Pacific 
Tomahawk facility. The petition raised issues regarding: (1) The 
sufficiency of monitoring for visible and particulate matter emissions; 
(2) the alleged failure to include federally enforceable applicable 
State Implementation Plan limits; (3) language that allegedly violates 
the credible evidence rule; and (4) conditions that allegedly are not 
practically enforceable.
    On November 5, 2007, the Administrator issued an order granting in 
part and denying in part the petition. The order explains the reasons 
behind EPA's conclusion.

    Dated: November 20, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7-23479 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P