28242 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 113 / Monday, June 15, 2009 / Notices 

December, 2008 (available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qabook.html). 

Vendor modifications of a designated 

equivalent method used for purposes of 

Part 58 are permitted only with prior 

approval of the EPA, as provided in part 

53. Provisions concerning modification 

of such methods by users are specified 

under Section 2.8 (Modifications of 

Methods by Users) of Appendix C to 40 

CFR Part 58. 

In general, a method designation 

applies to any sampler or analyzer 

which is identical to the sampler or 

analyzer described in the application for 

designation. In some cases, similar 

samplers or analyzers manufactured 

prior to the designation may be 

upgraded or converted (e.g., by minor 

modification or by substitution of the 

approved operation or instruction 

manual) so as to be identical to the 

designated method and thus achieve 

designated status. The manufacturer 

should be consulted to determine the 

feasibility of such upgrading or 

conversion. 

Part 53 requires that sellers of 

designated reference or equivalent 

method analyzers or samplers comply 

with certain conditions. These 

conditions are specified in 40 CFR 53.9. 

Aside from occasional breakdowns or 

malfunctions, consistent or repeated 

noncompliance with any of these 

conditions should be reported to: 

Director, Human Exposure and 

Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD– 

E205–01), National Exposure Research 

Laboratory, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711. 

Designation of this new equivalent 

method is intended to assist the States 

in establishing and operating their air 

quality surveillance systems under 40 

CFR part 58. Questions concerning the 

commercial availability or technical 

aspects of the method should be 

directed to the applicant. 

Jewel F. Morris, 

Acting Director, National Exposure Research 

Laboratory. 

[FR Doc. E9–14022 Filed 6–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8918–6] 

Clean Air Act Operating Permit 

Program; Petition for Objection to 

Federal Operating Permit for CITGO 

Refining and Chemicals Company L.P. 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final action. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

that the EPA Administrator has 

responded to a citizen petition asking 

EPA to object to the CITGO Refining and 

Chemicals Company L.P. (CITGO) 

operating permit issued by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality. 

Specifically, the Administrator has 

partially granted and partially denied 

the petition submitted by 

Environmental Integrity Project, the 

Refinery Reform Campaign, Citizens for 

Environmental Justice, and Suzie 

Canales (Petitioners), to object to the 

title V operating permit for CITGO to 

operate the West Plant at its refinery in 

Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the 

Clean Air Act (Act), the petitioner may 

seek judicial review of those portions of 

the petition which EPA denied in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit. 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 order, the petition, and other 

supporting information at EPA Region 6, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view copies of the 

final order, petition, and other 

supporting information. If you wish to 

examine these documents, you should 

make an appointment at least 24 hours 

before visiting day. The final order is 

also available electronically at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/

air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/citgo_

corpuschristi_west_response2007.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bonnie Braganza, Air Permits Section, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7340, or e-mail at 

braganza.bonnie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act 

affords EPA a 45-day period to review, 

and, as appropriate, object to operating 

permits proposed by State permitting 

authorities under Title V of the Act. 

Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes 

any person to petition the EPA 

Administrator within 60 days after the 

expiration of this review period to 

object to title V 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 

grounds for the issues arose after this 

period. 

On March 30, 2007, EPA received a 

petition from the Petitioners requesting 

that EPA object to the issuance of the 

title V operating permit to CITGO for the 

operation of the West Plant at its 

refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. First, 

the petitioners claim that the permit’s 

monitoring requirements are not 

adequate to ensure compliance with all 

emission limitations and other 

substantive Act requirements. 

Second, the Petitioners claim that the 

permit’s use of incorporation by 

reference for emission limitations and 

standards violates title V of the Act and 

its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

part 70 and renders the permit 

practically unenforceable. Further, the 

Petitioners claim that (1) the permit 

should include the emission rate tables 

located in underlying permits; (2) the 

Applicable Requirements Summary of 

the permit must reference a State 

administrative enforcement order, and 

the permit should explicitly state the 

provisions of the order as terms of the 

permit; and (3) the permit must 

explicitly incorporate a federal consent 

decree, and the permit should 

specifically state the emission 

limitations and monitoring 

requirements of the consent decree as 

terms of the permit. 

On May 28, 2009, the Administrator 

issued an order partially granting and 

partially denying the petition. The order 

explains the reasons behind EPA’s 

conclusion to partially grant and 

partially deny the petition for objection. 

Dated: June 5, 2009. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. E9–14016 Filed 6–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8918–7] 

Clean Air Act Operating Permit 

Program; Petition for Objection to 

Federal Operating Permit for The 

Premcor Refining Group, Inc. 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final action. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

that the EPA Administrator has 

responded to a citizen petition asking 

EPA to object to the Premcor Refining 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 113 / Monday, June 15, 2009 / Notices 28243 

Group Inc., (Premcor) title V operating 

permit issued by the Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 

Specifically, the Administrator has 

partially granted and partially denied 

the petition submitted by 

Environmental Integrity Project, the 

Community In-Power Development 

Association, Inc., Public Citizen’s Texas 

Office, and the Refinery Reform 

Campaign (Petitioners), to object to the 

permit for Premcor to operate its 

refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. 

Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the 

Clean Air Act (Act), the petitioner may 

seek judicial review of those portions of 

the petition which EPA denied in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit. 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 order, the petition, and other 

supporting information at EPA Region 6, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view copies of the 

final order, petition, and other 

supporting information. If you wish to 

examine these documents, you should 

make an appointment at least 24 hours 

before visiting day. The final order is 

also available electronically at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/ 

air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/ 

premcor_portarthur_response2007.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bonnie Braganza, Air Permits Section, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7340, or e-mail at 

braganza.bonnie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act 

affords EPA a 45-day period to review, 

and, as appropriate, object to operating 

permits proposed by State permitting 

authorities under title V of the Act. 

Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes 

any person to petition the EPA 

Administrator within 60 days after the 

expiration of this review period to 

object to title V 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 

grounds for the issues arose after this 

period. 

On February 16, 2007, EPA received 

a petition from the Petitioners 

requesting that EPA object to the 

issuance of the title V operating permit 

to Premcor for the operation of its 

refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. First, the 

petitioners claim that the proposed 

permit lacks monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting sufficient to assure 

compliance with all emission 

limitations and other substantive Clean 

Air Act requirements. Specifically the 

petitioners cite numerous monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

deficiencies in the underlying permits 

and permits by rule that are 

incorporated by reference into the title 

V permit. 

Second, the petitioners claim that the 

extensive use of incorporation by 

reference for emission limitations and 

standards violates title V of the Act and 

its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

part 70, thereby rendering the permit 

practically unenforceable. The 

petitioners claim that the use of 

incorporation by reference makes it 

practically impossible for the public to 

discover the requirements of the permit, 

which defeats the intention of the title 

V program. Further, the petitioners 

claim that there is inadequate guidance 

as to where the referenced permits may 

be found and they were unable to obtain 

complete or current copies of a number 

of the underlying permits from TCEQ. 

On May 28, 2009, the Administrator 

issued an order partially granting and 

partially denying the petition. The order 

explains the reasons behind EPA’s 

conclusion to partially grant and 

partially deny the petition for objection. 

Dated: June 5, 2009. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. E9–14008 Filed 6–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8917–7] 

Proposed Administrative Cost 

Recovery Agreement Pursuant to 

Section 122(h)(1) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) for the Haythorne 

Logistics Spill Site, Cheboygan 

County, MI 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (‘‘EPA’’). 

ACTION: Notice and request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

122(i) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), 

notification is hereby given of a 

proposed administrative settlement 

agreement regarding partial recovery of 

costs incurred by EPA in implementing 

a removal action at the site of a truck 

accident on Interstate 75 in Cheboygan 

County, Michigan. EPA proposes to 

enter into this agreement under the 

authority of Sections 107 and 122(h) of 

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607 and 9622(h). 

The proposed agreement has been 

executed by Haythorne Logistics, a 

trucking company located in Toledo 

Ohio. Under the proposed agreement, 

Haythorne Logistics will pay $119,000 

to reimburse the Superfund for part of 

the $137,915 in costs incurred by EPA 

in implementing the removal action. For 

thirty days following the date of 

publication of this notice, EPA will 

receive written comments relating to the 

proposed agreement. EPA will consider 

all comments received and may decide 

not to enter into the proposed agreement 

if comments disclose facts or 

considerations which indicate that the 

agreement is inappropriate, improper or 

inadequate. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

agreement must be received by EPA on 

or before July 15, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to the Docket Clerk, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604–3590, and 

should refer to: In the Matter of 

Haythorne Logistics, EPA Docket No. V– 

W–‘09–C–924. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Reginald A. Pallesen, Associate 

Regional Counsel, by mail at: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Regional Counsel (C–14J), 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604–3590, or by phone at: 

(312) 886–0555. A copy of the proposed 

administrative settlement agreement 

may be obtained in person or by mail 

from the EPA’s Region 5 Office of 

Regional Counsel, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604– 

3590. Additional background 

information relating to the settlement is 

available for review at the EPA’s Region 

5 Office of Regional Counsel. 

Authority: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601– 

9675. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES