83 FR 22678 - Notice of Order Denying Petition To Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 95 (May 16, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 95 (May 16, 2018)
| Page Range | 22678-22680 | |
| FR Document | 2018-10460 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 22678-22680] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-10460] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [CWA-05-2016-0014; FRL-9977-83-OARM] Notice of Order Denying Petition To Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order AGENCY: Office of Administrative Law Judges, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). [[Page 22679]] ACTION: Notice of order denying petition to set aside consent agreement and proposed final order. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In accordance with section 309(g)(4)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act), notice is hereby given that an Order Denying Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order has been issued in the matter styled as In the Matter of BP Products North America Inc., Docket No. CWA-05-2016-0014. This document serves to notify the public of the denial of the Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order filed in the matter and explain the reasons for such denial. ADDRESSES: To access and review documents filed in the matter that is the subject of this document, please visit https://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/alj/alj_web_docket.nsf/Dockets/CWA-05-2016-0014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Almase, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Administrative Law Judges (1900R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW; telephone number: (202) 564-6255 (main) or (202) 564-1170 (direct); fax number: (202) 565-0044; email address: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Legal Authority Section 309(g)(1)(A) of the CWA empowers EPA to assess an administrative civil penalty whenever on the basis of any information available EPA finds that a person has violated certain sections of the Act or any permit condition or limitation implementing any such section in a permit issued under section 402 or 404 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(1)(A)). However, before issuing an order assessing an administrative civil penalty under section 309(g), EPA is required by the CWA and the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/ Termination or Suspension of Permits (Rules of Practice) to provide public notice of and reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed issuance of such order (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4); 40 CFR 22.45(b)(1)). Any person who comments on the proposed assessment of a penalty is then entitled to receive notice of any hearing held under section 309(g) of the CWA and at such hearing is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(B); 40 CFR 22.45(c)(1)). If no hearing is held before issuance of an order assessing a penalty under section 309(g) of the CWA, such as where the administrative penalty action in question is settled pursuant to a consent agreement and final order, any person who commented on the proposed assessment may petition to set aside the order on the basis that material evidence was not considered and to hold a hearing on the penalty (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(C); 40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(ii)). The CWA requires that if the evidence presented by the petitioner in support of the petition is material and was not considered in the issuance of the order, the Administrator shall immediately set aside such order and provide a hearing in accordance with section 309(g)(33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(C)). Conversely, if the Administrator denies a hearing, the Administrator shall provide to the petitioner, and publish in the Federal Register, notice of and reasons for such denial. Id. Pursuant to section 309(g) of the CWA, the authority to decide petitions by commenters to set aside final orders entered without a hearing and provide copies and/or notice of the decision has been delegated to Regional Administrators in administrative penalty actions brought by regional offices of EPA. Administrator's Delegation of Authority 2-52A (accessible at: http://intranet.epa.gov/ohr/rmpolicy/ads/dm/2-52A.pdf). The Rules of Practice require that where a commenter petitions to set aside a consent agreement and final order in an administrative penalty action brought by a regional office of EPA, the Regional Administrator shall assign a Petition Officer to consider and rule on the petition (40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(iii)). Upon review of the petition and any response filed by the complainant, the Petition Officer shall then make written findings as to (A) the extent to which the petition states an issue relevant and material to the issuance of the consent agreement and proposed final order; (B) whether the complainant adequately considered and responded to the petition; and (C) whether resolution of the proceeding by the parties is appropriate without a hearing (40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(v)). If the Petition Officer finds that a hearing is appropriate, the Presiding Officer shall order that the consent agreement and proposed final order be set aside and establish a schedule for a hearing (40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(vi)). Conversely, if the Petition Officer finds that resolution of the proceeding without a hearing is appropriate, the Petition Officer shall issue an order denying the petition and stating reasons for the denial (40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(vii)). The Petition Officer shall then file the order with the Regional Hearing Clerk, serve copies of the on the parties and the commenter, and provide public notice of the order. Id. II. Procedural Background In May of 2016, the Director of the Water Division of EPA's Region 5 (Complainant) and BP Products North America Inc. (Respondent) executed a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) in the matter styled as In the Matter of BP Products North America Inc., Docket No. CWA-05-2016-0014.\1\ The CAFO sought to simultaneously commence and conclude an administrative penalty action under section 309(g) of the CWA against Respondent for alleged violations found by EPA during an inspection of Respondent's petroleum refinery located at 2815 Indianapolis Boulevard in Whiting, Indiana (Facility), conducted from May 5 through May 9, 2014. Under the terms of the CAFO, Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the CAFO but neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations and alleged violations. Nevertheless, Respondent waived its right to a hearing or to otherwise contest the CAFO, and agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $74,212. On May 31, 2016, Complainant and Respondent also entered into an Administrative Consent Order that incorporated a Compliance Plan setting forth the measures Respondent had already taken, as well as those it agreed it would take in the future, in response to the alleged violations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ While titled jointly, the Final Order is actually a separate document, drafted to be signed solely by Region 5's Acting Regional Administrator. It is the execution of the Final Order and its subsequent filing with the Regional Hearing Clerk at Region 5 that will effectuate the parties' Consent Agreement and conclude the proceeding. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On or about June 1, 2016, EPA provided public notice of its intent to file the proposed CAFO and accept public comments thereon. Carlotta Blake-King, Carolyn A. Marsh, Debra Michaud, and Patricia Walter (Petitioners) timely filed comments on the proposed CAFO (Comments). Complainant subsequently prepared a Response to Comments Regarding Proposed CAFO (Response to Comments), which indicated that EPA would not be altering the proposed CAFO. The Response to Comments was mailed to Petitioners, together with a copy of the proposed CAFO, on or about January 13, 2017, and each Petitioner received the materials by January 30, 2017. On or about February 24, 2017, Petitioners timely filed a joint petition seeking to set aside the proposed CAFO [[Page 22680]] and have a public hearing held thereon (Petition). A Request to Assign Petition Officer (Request) was issued by Region 5's Acting Regional Administrator on May 17, 2017, and served on Petitioners on May 30, 2017. In the Request, the Acting Regional Administrator stated that after considering the issues raised in the Petition, Complainant had decided not to withdraw the CAFO. Accordingly, the Acting Regional Administrator requested assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to consider and rule on the Petition pursuant to Sec. 22.45(c)(4)(iii) of the Rules of Practice, 40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(iii). By Order dated June 16, 2017, the undersigned was designated to preside over this matter, and Complainant was directed to file a response to the Petition. Complainant filed its Response to Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order (Response to Petition) on July 13, 2017. III. Denial of Petitioners' Petition On May 8, 2018, the undersigned issued an Order Denying Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order (Order). Therein, the undersigned denied the Petition without the need for a hearing on the basis that Petitioners had failed to present any relevant and material evidence that had not been adequately considered and responded to by Complainant. Specifically, Petitioners raised four issues.\2\ First, Petitioners argued that the alleged violations warranted a higher civil penalty than that assessed in the proposed CAFO and that the occurrence of the alleged violations in a region designated as an Area of Concern warranted an additional penalty of five million dollars. The undersigned determined that while Complainant did not provide a detailed explanation of how the civil penalty assessed in the proposed CAFO had been calculated, it had considered and responded to Petitioners' arguments in its Response to Comments and Response to Petition. The undersigned further found that Petitioners had produced no evidence to support their position or rebut Complainant's position that it had properly implemented the applicable policy governing its calculation and negotiation of the penalty assessed in the proposed CAFO. The undersigned concluded that Petitioners had not met the burden of demonstrating that the matters they raised with respect to the assessment of a higher penalty constituted material and relevant evidence that Complainant failed to consider in agreeing to the proposed CAFO. Thus, Petitioners' claim in this regard was denied. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Petitioners described the arguments set forth in the Petition as additions to the Comments they had previously submitted to EPA in response to the public notice of EPA's intent to file the proposed CAFO. Accordingly, the undersigned considered the arguments raised by Petitioners in both the Petition and the Comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second, Petitioners urged that a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) be incorporated into the proposed CAFO and that local residents be included in the distribution of funds for SEP projects. The undersigned found that as Complainant had stated in its Response to Comments and Response to Petition, EPA lacks the legal authority to demand a SEP or control the distribution of civil penalty funds. The undersigned concluded that given this lack of authority, the issues raised by Petitioners with regard to a SEP were immaterial to the issuance of the proposed CAFO. Thus, this claim was denied. Third, Petitioners urged that an independent advisory committee and environmental monitoring program for Respondent's wastewater treatment plant be created. Petitioners then questioned Respondent's community outreach activities, which Complainant had referenced in its Response to Comments. The undersigned found that as argued by Complainant in its Response to Petition, EPA lacks the legal authority under section 309(g) of the CWA to establish advisory committees or environmental monitoring programs or compel Respondent to engage in outreach activities. The undersigned concluded that given the absence of any material and relevant issue not considered by Complainant with respect to the course of action requested by Petitioners, their claim in this regard was also denied. Finally, Petitioners referred in their Comments and Petition to Respondent having a history of violations. While a violator's history of prior violations is a statutory penalty factor to be considered under section 309(g)(3) of the CWA, the undersigned found that Petitioners had presented no specific claims of violations that were related to those set forth in the proposed CAFO, and presented no argument supporting the notion that any prior, unspecified infraction, had it been considered, should have led to a penalty different than that agreed upon by the parties. The undersigned also noted that Complainant had addressed claims concerning Respondent's history of violations in its Response to Comments, which suggested that to the extent any prior violations would be relevant to the proposed CAFO, Complainant had adequately considered them. Accordingly, any claim in this regard was denied. Having found that Petitioners failed to present any relevant and material evidence that had not been adequately considered and responded to by Complainant in agreeing to the proposed CAFO, the undersigned then addressed Petitioners' requests for a public hearing in their Comments and Petition. Noting that Petitioners appeared to seek a public forum, at least in part, for the parties to explain the meaning of the proposed CAFO to the public, the undersigned observed that section 309(g) of the CWA and the Rules of Practice provide, not for a meeting of that nature, but rather a hearing at which evidence is presented for the purpose of determining whether Complainant met its burden of proving that Respondent committed the violations as alleged and that the proposed penalty is appropriate based on applicable law and policy. The undersigned noted that Petitioners did not specifically identify any testimonial or documentary evidence that they would present at any such hearing. The undersigned further noted that Petitioners did not offer in either their Comments or the Petition any relevant and material evidence or arguments that had not already been adequately addressed by Complainant. For these reasons, the undersigned found that resolution of the proceeding by the parties would be appropriate without a hearing. The undersigned thus issued the Order Denying Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order. Dated: May 8, 2018. Susan L. Biro, Chief Administrative Law Judge. [FR Doc. 2018-10460 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![22678 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices
of the CS. In addition, the CS CEMS first-come, first served basis. Pre- comments before the Monday, May 28,
needs to successfully pass the required registration is required. 2018, deadline.
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) and DATES: The NEJAC will convene a
A. Public Comment
meet additional conditions outline in Thursday, May 31, 2018, starting at 3:30
the determination letter for EPA p.m., Eastern Time. The meeting Individuals or groups making remarks
approval. discussion will focus on several topics during the public comment period will
including, but not limited to, the be limited to seven (7) minutes. To
Abstract for [Z170003]
discussion and deliberation of the final accommodate the number of people
Q: Does the EPA approve BP Product report from the NEJAC Youth who want to address the NEJAC, only
North America’s (BP) alternative Perspectives on Climate Change Work one representative of a particular
monitoring request to maintain the Group. One public comment period community, organization, or group will
hourly oxygen concentration in the relevant to the specific issues being be allowed to speak. Written comments
exhaust gas from the catalyst regenerator considered by the NEJAC (see can also be submitted for the record.
at or above one percent by volume on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) is The suggested format for individuals
a wet basis, as opposed to a dry basis scheduled for Thursday, May 31, 2018, providing public comments is as
as required by 40 CFR 63 subpart UUU starting at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. follows: Name of speaker; name of
at the Whiting, Indiana refinery? Members of the public who wish to organization/community; city and state;
A: Yes. The EPA approves the request participate during the public comment and email address; brief description of
to maintain the hourly oxygen period are highly encouraged to pre- the concern, and what you want the
concentration in the exhaust gas from register by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time on NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written
the catalyst regenerator at or above one Monday, May 28, 2018. comments received by registration
percent by volume on a wet basis during FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: deadline, will be included in the
periods of startup, shutdown, and hot Questions or correspondence materials distributed to the NEJAC prior
standby. BP provided information that concerning the public meeting should to the teleconference. Written comments
indicates catalyst fines can plug an be directed to Karen L. Martin, U.S. received after that time will be provided
analyzer that measures on a dry basis. Environmental Protection Agency, by to the NEJAC as time allows. All written
In addition, the oxygen concentration mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW comments should be sent to Karen L.
on a wet basis will always yield a lower (MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; by Martin, EPA, via email at
reading versus a dry basis oxygen telephone at 202–564–0203; via email at martin.karenl@epa.gov.
reading. martin.karenl@epa.gov; or by fax at B. Information About Services for
Dated: May 7, 2018. 202–564–1624. Additional information Individuals With Disabilities or
David A. Hindin, about the NEJAC is available at https:// Requiring English Language Translation
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ Assistance
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. national-environmental-justice-
[FR Doc. 2018–10463 Filed 5–15–18; 8:45 am] advisory-council. For information about access or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The services for individuals requiring
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Charter of the NEJAC states that the assistance, please contact Karen L.
advisory committee ‘‘will provide Martin, at (202) 564–0203 or via email
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION independent advice and at martin.karenl@epa.gov. To request
AGENCY recommendations to the Administrator special accommodations for a disability
about broad, crosscutting issues related or other assistance, please submit your
[FRL–9977–09–OECA] request at least fourteen (14) working
to environmental justice. The NEJAC’s
efforts will include evaluation of a days prior to the meeting, to give EPA
National Environmental Justice sufficient time to process your request.
Advisory Council; Notification of broad range of strategic, scientific,
technological, regulatory, community All requests should be sent to the
Public Teleconference and Public address, email, or phone/fax number
Comment engagement and economic issues related
to environmental justice.’’ listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
AGENCY: Environmental Protection CONTACT section.
Agency (EPA). Registration
Dated: April 25, 2018.
ACTION: Notification of public meeting. Registration for the May 31, 2018, Matthew Tejada,
public teleconference will be processed Designated Federal Officer, National
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal at https://nejac-may-31-2018-public- Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the teleconference.eventbrite.com. Pre- [FR Doc. 2018–09556 Filed 5–15–18; 8:45 am]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registration is required. Registration for BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
(EPA) hereby provides notice that the the May 31, 2018, meeting closes at
National Environmental Justice 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time on Monday,
Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet on May 28, 2018. The deadline to sign up ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
the dates and times described below. All to speak during the public comment AGENCY
meetings are open to the public. period, or to submit written public
Members of the public are encouraged comments, is 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time
[CWA–05–2016–0014; FRL–9977–83–OARM]
to provide comments relevant to the on Monday, May 28, 2018. When
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
specific issues being considered by the registering, please provide your name, Notice of Order Denying Petition To
NEJAC. For additional information organization, city and state, email Set Aside Consent Agreement and
about registering to attend the meeting address, and telephone number for Proposed Final Order
or to provide public comment, please follow up. Please also indicate whether
see Registration under SUPPLEMENTARY you would like to provide public AGENCY: Office of Administrative Law
INFORMATION. Due to a limited number of comment during the meeting, and Judges, Environmental Protection
telephone lines, attendance will be on a whether you are submitting written Agency (EPA).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22773/page/1.svg)
![22680 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices
and have a public hearing held thereon the burden of demonstrating that the adequately considered them.
(Petition). matters they raised with respect to the Accordingly, any claim in this regard
A Request to Assign Petition Officer assessment of a higher penalty was denied.
(Request) was issued by Region 5’s constituted material and relevant Having found that Petitioners failed to
Acting Regional Administrator on May evidence that Complainant failed to present any relevant and material
17, 2017, and served on Petitioners on consider in agreeing to the proposed evidence that had not been adequately
May 30, 2017. In the Request, the Acting CAFO. Thus, Petitioners’ claim in this considered and responded to by
Regional Administrator stated that after regard was denied. Complainant in agreeing to the
considering the issues raised in the Second, Petitioners urged that a proposed CAFO, the undersigned then
Petition, Complainant had decided not Supplemental Environmental Project addressed Petitioners’ requests for a
to withdraw the CAFO. Accordingly, the (SEP) be incorporated into the proposed public hearing in their Comments and
Acting Regional Administrator CAFO and that local residents be Petition. Noting that Petitioners
requested assignment of an included in the distribution of funds for appeared to seek a public forum, at least
Administrative Law Judge to consider SEP projects. The undersigned found in part, for the parties to explain the
and rule on the Petition pursuant to that as Complainant had stated in its meaning of the proposed CAFO to the
§ 22.45(c)(4)(iii) of the Rules of Practice, Response to Comments and Response to public, the undersigned observed that
40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(iii). By Order dated Petition, EPA lacks the legal authority to section 309(g) of the CWA and the Rules
June 16, 2017, the undersigned was demand a SEP or control the of Practice provide, not for a meeting of
designated to preside over this matter, distribution of civil penalty funds. The that nature, but rather a hearing at
and Complainant was directed to file a undersigned concluded that given this which evidence is presented for the
response to the Petition. Complainant lack of authority, the issues raised by purpose of determining whether
filed its Response to Petition to Set Petitioners with regard to a SEP were Complainant met its burden of proving
Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed immaterial to the issuance of the that Respondent committed the
Final Order (Response to Petition) on proposed CAFO. Thus, this claim was violations as alleged and that the
July 13, 2017. denied. proposed penalty is appropriate based
Third, Petitioners urged that an on applicable law and policy. The
III. Denial of Petitioners’ Petition independent advisory committee and undersigned noted that Petitioners did
On May 8, 2018, the undersigned environmental monitoring program for not specifically identify any testimonial
issued an Order Denying Petition to Set Respondent’s wastewater treatment or documentary evidence that they
Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed plant be created. Petitioners then would present at any such hearing. The
Final Order (Order). Therein, the questioned Respondent’s community undersigned further noted that
undersigned denied the Petition without outreach activities, which Complainant Petitioners did not offer in either their
the need for a hearing on the basis that had referenced in its Response to Comments or the Petition any relevant
Petitioners had failed to present any Comments. The undersigned found that and material evidence or arguments that
relevant and material evidence that had as argued by Complainant in its had not already been adequately
not been adequately considered and Response to Petition, EPA lacks the addressed by Complainant. For these
responded to by Complainant. legal authority under section 309(g) of reasons, the undersigned found that
Specifically, Petitioners raised four the CWA to establish advisory resolution of the proceeding by the
issues.2 First, Petitioners argued that the committees or environmental parties would be appropriate without a
alleged violations warranted a higher monitoring programs or compel hearing.
civil penalty than that assessed in the Respondent to engage in outreach The undersigned thus issued the
proposed CAFO and that the occurrence activities. The undersigned concluded Order Denying Petition to Set Aside
of the alleged violations in a region that given the absence of any material Consent Agreement and Proposed Final
designated as an Area of Concern and relevant issue not considered by Order.
warranted an additional penalty of five Complainant with respect to the course
million dollars. The undersigned of action requested by Petitioners, their Dated: May 8, 2018.
determined that while Complainant did claim in this regard was also denied. Susan L. Biro,
not provide a detailed explanation of Finally, Petitioners referred in their Chief Administrative Law Judge.
how the civil penalty assessed in the Comments and Petition to Respondent [FR Doc. 2018–10460 Filed 5–15–18; 8:45 am]
proposed CAFO had been calculated, it having a history of violations. While a BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
had considered and responded to violator’s history of prior violations is a
Petitioners’ arguments in its Response to statutory penalty factor to be considered
Comments and Response to Petition. under section 309(g)(3) of the CWA, the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
The undersigned further found that undersigned found that Petitioners had
Petitioners had produced no evidence to presented no specific claims of [Notice 2018–09]
support their position or rebut violations that were related to those set
forth in the proposed CAFO, and Filing Dates for the Texas Special
Complainant’s position that it had Election in the 27th Congressional
properly implemented the applicable presented no argument supporting the
notion that any prior, unspecified District
policy governing its calculation and
negotiation of the penalty assessed in infraction, had it been considered, AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.
the proposed CAFO. The undersigned should have led to a penalty different ACTION: Notice of filing dates for special
than that agreed upon by the parties.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
concluded that Petitioners had not met election.
The undersigned also noted that
2 Petitioners described the arguments set forth in Complainant had addressed claims SUMMARY: Texas has scheduled a special
the Petition as additions to the Comments they had concerning Respondent’s history of general election on June 30, 2018, to fill
previously submitted to EPA in response to the violations in its Response to Comments, the U.S. House of Representatives seat
public notice of EPA’s intent to file the proposed
CAFO. Accordingly, the undersigned considered
which suggested that to the extent any in the 27th Congressional District
the arguments raised by Petitioners in both the prior violations would be relevant to the vacated by Representative Blake
Petition and the Comments. proposed CAFO, Complainant had Farenthold. There are two possible
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_22773/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-02 09:13:44
Document Modified: 2018-11-02 09:13:44
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of order denying petition to set aside consent agreement and proposed final order. | |
| Contact | Jennifer Almase, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Administrative Law Judges (1900R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW; telephone number: (202) 564-6255 (main) or (202) 564-1170 (direct); fax number: (202) 565-0044; email | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 22678 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR