Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for the Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery, 48817 [2018-21085]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2018 / Notices
with the revised federal criteria. The SIR
does not require the use of a particular
application form. Section 239.3 of the
SIR, however, requires that all state
applications contain the following five
components:
(1) A transmittal letter requesting
permit program approval.
(2) A narrative description of the state
permit program, including a
demonstration that the state’s standards
for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste
disposal units that receive CESQG
hazardous waste are technically
comparable to the Part 257, Subpart B
criteria and/or that its MSWLF
standards are technically comparable to
the Part 258 criteria.
(3) A legal certification demonstrating
that the state has the authority to carry
out the program.
(4) Copies of state laws, regulations,
and guidance that the state believes
demonstrate program adequacy.
(5) Copies of relevant state-tribal
agreements if the state has negotiated
with a tribe for the implementation of a
permit program for non-municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units that
receive CESQG hazardous waste and/or
MSWLFs on tribal lands.
The EPA Administrator has delegated
the authority to make determinations of
adequacy, as contained in the statute, to
the EPA Regional Administrator. The
appropriate EPA Regional Office,
therefore, will use the information
provided by each state to determine
whether the state’s permit program
satisfies the statutory test reflected in
the requirements of 40 CFR part 239. In
all cases, the information will be
analyzed to determine the adequacy of
the state’s permit program for ensuring
compliance with the federal revised
criteria.
Form Numbers: None.
Respondents/affected entities: State,
Local, or Tribal Governments.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory under Section 4005(c) of
RCRA.
Estimated number of respondents: 12.
Frequency of response: On occasion.
Total estimated burden: 968 hours
(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.03(b).
Total estimated cost: $57,872 (per
year), which includes $57,872 for
annual labor and $0 for annualized
capital or operation & maintenance
costs.
Changes in the Estimates: There is no
change in the total estimated burden
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:20 Sep 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
currently identified in the OMB
Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.
Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018–20635 Filed 9–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–9984–26—Region 9]
Clean Air Act Operating Permit
Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for the Phillips
66 San Francisco Refinery
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final Order on Petition
for objection to Clean Air Act title V
operating permit.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an
Order dated August 8, 2018, denying a
Petition dated March 19, 2018, from
Communities for a Better Environment,
San Francisco Baykeeper, Center for
Biological Diversity, Friends of the
Earth, Stand.earth, and Sierra Club. The
Petition requested that the EPA object to
a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating
permit issued by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD
or the District) to Facility No. A0016,
the Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery
(Phillips 66 or the facility), located in
Contra Costa County, California.
ADDRESSES: The EPA requests that you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view copies of the final Order, the
Petition, and other supporting
information. You may review copies of
the final Order, the Petition, and other
supporting information at the EPA
Region IX Office, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105. You
may view the hard copies Monday
through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays. If you wish
to examine these documents, you
should make an appointment at least 24
hours before the visiting day.
Additionally, the final Order and
Petition are available electronically at:
https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operatingpermits/title-v-petition-database.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4156, kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA
affords the EPA a 45-day period to
review and object to, as appropriate,
operating permits proposed by state
permitting authorities under title V of
the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48817
authorizes any person to petition the
EPA Administrator to object to a title V
operating permit within 60 days after
the expiration of the EPA’s 45-day
review period if the EPA has not
objected on its own initiative. 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 such objections
during the comment period or unless
the grounds for such objections arose
after this period.
The EPA received the Petition from
Communities for a Better Environment,
San Francisco Baykeeper, Center for
Biological Diversity, Friends of the
Earth, Stand.earth, and Sierra Club
dated March 19, 2018, requesting that
the EPA object to the issuance of
operating permit for Facility No. A0016,
issued by the BAAQMD to Phillips 66
in Contra Costa County, California. The
Petition raised various claims centered
around the allegation that the District
improperly and unlawfully issued a title
V permit renewal because it included an
approval of permitted capacity increases
for two hydrocracking emission units
without providing adequate notice to
the public and without a legal or factual
basis for the approval.
On August 8, 2018, the EPA
Administrator issued an Order denying
the Petition. The Order explains the
basis for the EPA’s decision.
Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the
CAA provide that a petitioner may
request judicial review of those portions
of an order that deny issues in a
petition. Any petition for review shall
be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit no
later than November 26, 2018.
Dated: September 6, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018–21085 Filed 9–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Clinical Laboratory Improvement
Advisory Committee (CLIAC); Meeting
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 48817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21085]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9984-26--Region 9]
Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for the Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final Order on Petition for objection to Clean Air
Act title V operating permit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed
an Order dated August 8, 2018, denying a Petition dated March 19, 2018,
from Communities for a Better Environment, San Francisco Baykeeper,
Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Stand.earth, and
Sierra Club. The Petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air
Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD or the District) to Facility No. A0016, the
Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery (Phillips 66 or the facility),
located in Contra Costa County, California.
ADDRESSES: The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of the final
Order, the Petition, and other supporting information. You may review
copies of the final Order, the Petition, and other supporting
information at the EPA Region IX Office, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105. You may view the hard copies Monday
through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., excluding federal holidays. If
you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at
least 24 hours before the visiting day. Additionally, the final Order
and Petition are available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4156, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to
review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by
state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section
505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA
Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days
after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has
not objected on its own initiative. 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 such
objections during the comment period or unless the grounds for such
objections arose after this period.
The EPA received the Petition from Communities for a Better
Environment, San Francisco Baykeeper, Center for Biological Diversity,
Friends of the Earth, Stand.earth, and Sierra Club dated March 19,
2018, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating
permit for Facility No. A0016, issued by the BAAQMD to Phillips 66 in
Contra Costa County, California. The Petition raised various claims
centered around the allegation that the District improperly and
unlawfully issued a title V permit renewal because it included an
approval of permitted capacity increases for two hydrocracking emission
units without providing adequate notice to the public and without a
legal or factual basis for the approval.
On August 8, 2018, the EPA Administrator issued an Order denying
the Petition. The Order explains the basis for the EPA's decision.
Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner
may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny
issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later
than November 26, 2018.
Dated: September 6, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-21085 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
