83 FR 22974 - Order Denying Petition To Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 96 (May 17, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 96 (May 17, 2018)
| Page Range | 22974-22976 | |
| FR Document | 2018-10568 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 22974-22976] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-10568] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [CWA-05-2016-0015; FRL-9978-10-OARM] Order Denying Petition To Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order AGENCY: Office of Administrative Law Judges, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of order denying petition to set aside consent agreement and proposed final order. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In accordance with section 311(b)(6)(C)(iii) 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-05-2016-0015. 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-05-2016-0015. 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: oaljfiling@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Legal Authority Section 311(b)(6)(A) of the CWA empowers EPA to assess a class I or class II administrative civil penalty against any owner, operator, or person in charge of any onshore facility from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of section 311(b)(3), or who fails or refuses to comply with any regulation issued under section 311(j) to which that owner, operator, or person in charge is subject (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(A)). However, before issuing an order assessing a class II civil penalty under section 311(b)(6), 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 [[Page 22975]] opportunity to comment on the proposed issuance of such order (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C)(i); 40 CFR 22.45(b)(1)). Any person who comments on the proposed assessment of a class II civil penalty under section 311(b)(6) is then entitled to receive notice of any hearing held under section 311(b)(6) of the CWA and at such hearing is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C)(ii); 40 CFR 22.45(c)(1)). If no hearing is held before issuance of an order assessing a class II civil penalty under section 311(b)(6) 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. 1321(b)(6)(C)(iii); 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 311(b)(6)(B)(ii) (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C)(iii)). 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 311 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 Superfund 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-05-2016-0015.\1\ The CAFO sought to simultaneously commence and conclude an administrative penalty action under section 311(b)(6)(A)(ii) of the CWA against Respondent for alleged violations related to a discharge of oil from Respondent's petroleum refinery located at 2815 Indianapolis Boulevard in Whiting, Indiana (Facility), into Lake Michigan on March 24, 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 $151,899. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ While titled ``Consent Agreement and Final Order,'' a final order was not actually included with the CAFO filed with this Tribunal. It is the execution of a final order by Region 5's Regional Administrator, 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 17, 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 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.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Richard C. Karl, who executed the CAFO as Region 5's Director of the Superfund Division, seemingly left that position by the time the Acting Regional Administrator issued the Request to Assign Petition Officer. In the Request, the Acting Regional Administrator noted that Complainant, the Acting Superfund Division Director, had decided not to withdraw the CAFO. Subsequently, Margaret M. Guerriero, as the Acting Director of Region 5's Superfund Division, submitted the Response to Petition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 issues that the undersigned grouped into four categories.\3\ First, Petitioners argued that the alleged violations warranted the assessment of the maximum penalty of $187,500 allowed under the applicable law, suggesting that Complainant failed [[Page 22976]] in its penalty calculation to consider material evidence regarding the magnitude of the violations to the local community. Petitioners cited, among other considerations, that Lake Michigan is a source of drinking water for residents of the City of Chicago and surrounding region and that the March 24, 2014 discharge of oil from the Facility into Lake Michigan occurred only a few miles from the structures operating in Lake Michigan to collect that drinking water. Petitioners further argued that the violations were part of a broader environmental crisis perpetuated by Respondent. 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, and in particular an account of how the environmental impact of the alleged violations on the community, if any, was considered, 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ 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 an additional fine of $100,000 be levied against Respondent for its purported culture of indifference towards health and safety, which, according to Petitioners, was evident from the violations Respondent has committed and the ineffective responses it has undertaken over many years. In considering this issue, the undersigned first noted that EPA is limited to imposing the maximum penalty permitted under applicable law for the violations alleged and determining the penalty based on the statutory factors and that Petitioners failed to cite any legal authority allowing EPA to impose a fine beyond the maximum statutory penalty. The undersigned then noted that Petitioners also failed to offer any argument or evidence rebutting Complainant's position that it had properly implemented the applicable policy governing its calculation and negotiation of the penalty assessed in the proposed CAFO, which takes the statutory penalty factors into account. Accordingly, the undersigned found that with respect to this issue, Petitioners did not present any fact or argument relevant and material to the proposed CAFO that was not already considered by Complainant. Thus, the claim was denied. Third, Petitioners urged that a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) be incorporated into the proposed CAFO for local projects and that local residents be included in the projects. In association with those requests, Petitioners questioned the manner in which funds for SEPs were distributed by EPA and the Department of Justice and asserted that residents had not been included in projects occurring in the Lake George Branch of the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. 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. Fourth, 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 311(b)(6) 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. 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 311(b)(6)(B)(ii) 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. 2018-10568 Filed 5-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![22974 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Notices
Dr., P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Ave., Summerstrand, Port Elizabeth ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Park, NC 27709–3528. Active ingredient: 6001, South Africa (c/o Walter G. AGENCY
Mefentrifluconazole. Product type: Talarek PC, 5153 Allison Marshall Dr.,
[CWA–05–2016–0015; FRL–9978–10–OARM]
Fungicide. Proposed uses: Grape, pome, Warrenton, VA 20187–8980). Product
stone fruits, and tree nuts. Contact: RD. name: Rat-O-Repel Pouches. Active Order Denying Petition To Set Aside
12. File Symbol: 7969–UNU. Docket ingredients: Repellent—Eucalyptus Oil Consent Agreement and Proposed
ID number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0002. at 3.00%, Rosemary Oil at 1.00%, Spike Final Order
Applicant: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Lavender Oil at 1.00%, Oregano Oil at
Dr., P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle AGENCY: Office of Administrative Law
1.00%, Tagetes Oil at 0.75%, Thyme Oil
Park, NC 27709–3528. Active ingredient: Judges, Environmental Protection
at 0.50%, Clove Oil at 0.50% and
Mefentrifluconazole. Product type: Agency (EPA).
Fungicide. Proposed uses: Non- Peppermint Oil at 0.50%. Proposed use:
ACTION: Notice of order denying petition
residential turf and ornamentals. Rodent repellent. Contact: BPPD.
to set aside consent agreement and
Contact: RD. 19. File Symbol: 91482–G. Docket ID proposed final order.
13. File Symbol: 7969–URN. Docket number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0106.
ID number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0002. Applicant: Rat-O-Repel CC, No. 11 Sixth SUMMARY: In accordance with section
Applicant: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Ave., Summerstrand, Port Elizabeth 311(b)(6)(C)(iii) of the Clean Water Act
Dr., P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle 6001, South Africa (c/o Walter G. (CWA or Act), notice is hereby given
Park, NC 27709–3528. Active ingredient: Talarek PC, 5153 Allison Marshall Dr., that an Order Denying Petition to Set
Mefentrifluconazole and Fluxapyroxad. Warrenton, VA 20187–8980). Product Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed
Product type: Fungicide. Proposed uses: name: Rat-O-Repel Garbage Bags. Active Final Order has been issued in the
Pome fruits, stone fruits, and tree nuts. ingredients: Repellent—Eucalyptus Oil matter styled as In the Matter of BP
Contact: RD. Products North America Inc., Docket
14. File Symbol: 7969–URR. Docket ID at 1.500%, Rosemary Oil at 0.500%,
No. CWA–05–2016–0015. This
number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0002. Spike Lavender Oil at 0.500%, Oregano
document serves to notify the public of
Applicant: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Oil at 0.500%, Tagetes Oil at 0.375%,
the denial of the Petition to Set Aside
Dr., P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Thyme Oil at 0.250%, Clove Oil at
Consent Agreement and Proposed Final
Park, NC 27709–3528. Active ingredient: 0.250% and Peppermint Oil at 0.250%. Order filed in the matter and explain the
Mefentrifluconazole. Product type: Proposed use: Rodent repellent. reasons for such denial.
Fungicide. Proposed uses: Beans and Contact: BPPD.
ADDRESSES: To access and review
peas, citrus, corn, peanut, potato, 20. File Symbol: 91482–R. Docket ID documents filed in the matter that is the
rapeseed (canola), small grains, sorghum number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0106. subject of this document, please visit
and millet, soybean, and sugar beet. Applicant: Rat-O-Repel CC, No. 11 Sixth https://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/alj/alj_
Contact: RD. Ave., Summerstrand, Port Elizabeth web_docket.nsf/Dockets/CWA-05-2016-
15. File Symbol: 89633–A. Docket ID 6001, South Africa (c/o Walter G. 0015.
number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0193. Talarek PC, 5153 Allison Marshall Dr.,
Applicant: Moghu Research Center, Ltd. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Warrenton, VA 20187–8980). Product Jennifer Almase, Attorney-Advisor,
BVC #311, KRIBB, Yuscong, Daejeon,
name: Rat-O-Repel Shock Spray. Active Office of Administrative Law Judges
305–333, Korea (c/o toXcel, 7140
Heritage Village Plaza, Gainesville, VA ingredients: Repellent—Eucalyptus Oil (1900R), Environmental Protection
20155). Product name: Methiozolin at 3.00%, Rosemary Oil at 1.00%, Spike Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW;
Technical. Active ingredient: Lavender Oil at 1.00%, Oregano Oil at telephone number: (202) 564–6255
Herbicide—methiozolin at 97%. 1.00%, Tagetes Oil at 0.75%, Thyme Oil (main) or (202) 564–1170 (direct); fax
Proposed use: Formulation into at 0.50%, Clove Oil at 0.50% and number: (202) 565–0044; email address:
products to be used on golf course turf. Peppermint Oil at 0.50%. Proposed use: oaljfiling@epa.gov.
Contact: RD. Rodent repellent. Contact: BPPD. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
16. File Symbol: 89633–L. Docket ID 21. File Symbol: 92083–R. Docket ID I. Legal Authority
number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0193. number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0045.
Applicant: Moghu Research Center, Ltd. Applicant: Bi-PA nv, Technologielaan 7, Section 311(b)(6)(A) of the CWA
BVC #311, KRIBB, Yuscong, Daejeon, empowers EPA to assess a class I or
B–1840 Londerzeel, Belgium (c/o
305–333, Korea (c/o toXcel, 7140 class II administrative civil penalty
SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director’s Loop,
Heritage Village Plaza, Gainesville, VA against any owner, operator, or person
Woodbridge, VA 22192). Product name: in charge of any onshore facility from
20155). Product name: Poacure SC.
Vintec. Active ingredient: Fungicide— which oil or a hazardous substance is
Active ingredient: Herbicide—
Trichoderma atroviride strain SC1 at discharged in violation of section
methiozolin at 25%. Proposed use: Golf
15%. Proposed use: For control or 311(b)(3), or who fails or refuses to
course turf. Contact: RD.
17. File Symbol: 89633–U. Docket ID suppression of botrytis/bunch rot/gray comply with any regulation issued
number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0193. mold on grapevine, tomato and under section 311(j) to which that
Applicant: Moghu Research Center, Ltd. strawberry. Contact: BPPD. owner, operator, or person in charge is
BVC #311, KRIBB, Yuscong, Daejeon, Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. subject (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(A)).
305–333, Korea (c/o toXcel, 7140 However, before issuing an order
Dated: May 1, 2018.
Heritage Village Plaza, Gainesville, VA assessing a class II civil penalty under
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
20155). Product name: Poacure. Active Delores Barber, section 311(b)(6), EPA is required by the
ingredient: Herbicide—methiozolin at Director, Information Technology and CWA and the Consolidated Rules of
25%. Proposed use: Golf course turf. Resources Management Division, Office of Practice Governing the Administrative
Contact: RD. Pesticide Programs. Assessment of Civil Penalties and the
18. File Symbol: 91482–E. Docket ID [FR Doc. 2018–10578 Filed 5–16–18; 8:45 am] Revocation/Termination or Suspension
number: EPA–HQ–OPP–2018–0106. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P of Permits (Rules of Practice) to provide
Applicant: Rat-O-Repel CC, No. 11 Sixth public notice of and reasonable
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM 17MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_23070/page/1.svg)
![22976 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Notices
in its penalty calculation to consider negotiation of the penalty assessed in section 311(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the CWA and
material evidence regarding the the proposed CAFO, which takes the the Rules of Practice provide, not for a
magnitude of the violations to the local statutory penalty factors into account. meeting of that nature, but rather a
community. Petitioners cited, among Accordingly, the undersigned found hearing at which evidence is presented
other considerations, that Lake that with respect to this issue, for the purpose of determining whether
Michigan is a source of drinking water Petitioners did not present any fact or Complainant met its burden of proving
for residents of the City of Chicago and argument relevant and material to the that Respondent committed the
surrounding region and that the March proposed CAFO that was not already violations as alleged and that the
24, 2014 discharge of oil from the considered by Complainant. Thus, the proposed penalty is appropriate based
Facility into Lake Michigan occurred claim was denied. on applicable law and policy. The
only a few miles from the structures Third, Petitioners urged that a undersigned noted that Petitioners did
operating in Lake Michigan to collect Supplemental Environmental Project not specifically identify any testimonial
that drinking water. Petitioners further (SEP) be incorporated into the proposed or documentary evidence that they
argued that the violations were part of CAFO for local projects and that local would present at any such hearing. The
a broader environmental crisis residents be included in the projects. In undersigned further noted that
perpetuated by Respondent. The association with those requests, Petitioners did not offer in either their
undersigned determined that while Petitioners questioned the manner in Comments or the Petition any relevant
Complainant did not provide a detailed which funds for SEPs were distributed and material evidence or arguments that
explanation of how the civil penalty by EPA and the Department of Justice had not already been adequately
assessed in the proposed CAFO had and asserted that residents had not been addressed by Complainant. For these
been calculated, and in particular an included in projects occurring in the reasons, the undersigned found that
account of how the environmental Lake George Branch of the Indiana resolution of the proceeding by the
impact of the alleged violations on the Harbor Ship Canal. The undersigned parties would be appropriate without a
community, if any, was considered, it found that as Complainant had stated in hearing.
had considered and responded to its Response to Comments and Response The undersigned thus issued the
Petitioners’ arguments in its Response to to Petition, EPA lacks the legal authority Order Denying Petition to Set Aside
Comments and Response to Petition. to demand a SEP or control the Consent Agreement and Proposed Final
The undersigned further found that distribution of civil penalty funds. The Order.
Petitioners had produced no evidence to undersigned concluded that given this
lack of authority, the issues raised by Dated: May 8, 2018.
support their position or rebut Susan L. Biro,
Complainant’s position that it had Petitioners with regard to a SEP were
immaterial to the issuance of the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
properly implemented the applicable
policy governing its calculation and proposed CAFO. Thus, this claim was [FR Doc. 2018–10568 Filed 5–16–18; 8:45 am]
negotiation of the penalty assessed in denied. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Fourth, Petitioners urged that an
the proposed CAFO. The undersigned
independent advisory committee and
concluded that Petitioners had not met
environmental monitoring program for ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
the burden of demonstrating that the
Respondent’s wastewater treatment AGENCY
matters they raised with respect to the
plant be created. Petitioners then
assessment of a higher penalty [EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0617; FRL–9977–37]
questioned Respondent’s community
constituted material and relevant
outreach activities, which Complainant FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel;
evidence that Complainant failed to had referenced in its Response to
consider in agreeing to the proposed Notice of 4-Day In-Person Meeting
Comments. The undersigned found that Location; Notice of Public Preparatory
CAFO. Thus, Petitioners’ claim in this as argued by Complainant in its
regard was denied. Webcast Meeting; Request for
Response to Petition, EPA lacks the Comments on Prospective Candidate
Second, Petitioners urged that an legal authority under section 311(b)(6) Ad Hoc Reviewers; Extension of
additional fine of $100,000 be levied of the CWA to establish advisory Written Comment Periods
against Respondent for its purported committees or environmental
culture of indifference towards health monitoring programs or compel AGENCY: Environmental Protection
and safety, which, according to Respondent to engage in outreach Agency (EPA).
Petitioners, was evident from the activities. The undersigned concluded ACTION: Notice.
violations Respondent has committed that given the absence of any material
and the ineffective responses it has and relevant issue not considered by SUMMARY: The July 17–20, 2018, in-
undertaken over many years. In Complainant with respect to the course person meeting of the Federal
considering this issue, the undersigned of action requested by Petitioners, their Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
first noted that EPA is limited to claim in this regard was also denied. Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA
imposing the maximum penalty Having found that Petitioners failed to SAP) to consider and review Resistance
permitted under applicable law for the present any relevant and material of Lepidopteran Pests to Bacillus
violations alleged and determining the evidence that had not been adequately thuringiensis (Bt) Plant Incorporated
penalty based on the statutory factors considered and responded to by Plants in the U.S will be held in the
and that Petitioners failed to cite any Complainant in agreeing to the Rosslyn Ballroom at the Holiday Inn
legal authority allowing EPA to impose proposed CAFO, the undersigned then Rosslyn at Key Bridge, 1900 North Fort
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
a fine beyond the maximum statutory addressed Petitioners’ requests for a Myer Drive, Arlington, VA 22209. For
penalty. The undersigned then noted public hearing in their Comments and additional information on this in-person
that Petitioners also failed to offer any Petition. Noting that Petitioners meeting, please refer to the March 5,
argument or evidence rebutting appeared to seek a public forum, at least 2018 Federal Register (FRL–9971–35).
Complainant’s position that it had in part, for the parties to explain the There will be a 2-hour preparatory
properly implemented the applicable meaning of the proposed CAFO to the webcast meeting on June 5, 2018 to
policy governing its calculation and public, the undersigned observed that consider and review the scope and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM 17MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_23070/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-05-17 00:51:32
Document Modified: 2018-05-17 00:51:32
| 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 22974 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR