Ultramar Inc. (Board decision, November 7, 2024)

Plain-English summary

Genghmun Eng asked the Environmental Appeals Board to reverse the Administrator's order denying a petition to object to a Title V operating permit issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the Ultramar refinery in Los Angeles County, California. The Board explained that the Clean Air Act does not delegate the Administrator's authority to rule on a Title V objection petition to the Board. A denial of the objection petition may be subject to judicial review, but the EAB is not the forum for that review. The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: Clean Air Act §§ 307 and 505; 42 U.S.C. §§ 7607 and 7661d; 40 C.F.R. part 70
• Outcome: The appeal was dismissed for lack of EAB jurisdiction.
• Key point: The EAB cannot review an Administrator's order denying a petition to object to a Title V operating permit.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

                                                                                      F I L E D
                                                                                          Nov 07, 2024
                                                                                     Clerk, Environmental Appeals Board
                                                                                     INITIALS ________________________
                  ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C.


                                             )
                                             )

In re Ultramar Inc. CAA Appeal No. 24-11
)
South Coast Air Quality Management )
District Title V Operating Permit Renewal )
for Facility ID 800026 )
)

        ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

   Petitioner Genghmun Eng filed a “Permit Brief Appeal” asking the Environmental

Appeals Board to “reverse” Administrator Michael Regan’s Order Denying a Petition for

Objection to a Title V Operating Permit (Title V Petition No. IX-2024-14) issued by the South

Coast Air Quality Management District to the Ultramar Inc. refinery in Los Angeles County,

California. As explained further below, the Board has does not have jurisdiction to review the

Administrator’s order. Accordingly, the Board dismisses this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

   As stated in previous orders, the Board is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. The Board’s

authority is limited by the statutes, regulations, and Administrator’s delegations that authorize

and govern the Board’s authority. See In re Tewa Women United, Dr. Maureen Merritt, and

Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, CAA Appeal No. 15-03, at 2 (EAB May 15, 2015)

(Order Dismissing Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction); In re Stericycle Inc., CAA Appeal No. 13-

01, at 4-5 (EAB Nov. 14, 2013) (Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction); In re DPL

Energy Montpelier Elec. Generating Station, 9 E.A.D. 695, 698 (EAB 2001). Where the Board

lacks jurisdiction, it dismisses the appeal.
 In this case, Genghmun Eng filed with the Agency a petition pursuant to CAA section

505(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2), requesting that the Administrator object to the Ultramar

Title V operating permit. CAA section 505(b)(2) specifically provides that the Administrator

may not delegate the authority to object to a Title V permit.1 That section also provides that a

denial of a petition to object is subject to judicial review under CAA section 307 (42 U.S.C. §

7607). CAA § 505(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2).2 Thus, although Petitioner may have a

forum available in which to seek relief, that forum is not the Board. The Board has no authority

to review the Administrator’s Order Denying A Petition For Objection To A Title V Operating

Permit. As such, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

   So ordered.3


                                                  ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

Dated: November 7, 2024 By: ________
Ammie Roseman-Orr
Environmental Appeals Judge

   1
      Additionally, as the Board has previously explained, “nothing in the Clean Air Act or in

part 70 grants the Board jurisdiction to review Title V permits issued by approved states pursuant
to part 70.” In re Sierra Pacific Indus., Anderson Div., 16 E.A.D. 375, 381 (EAD 2014).
2
The Clean Air Act includes timing and venue requirements for seeking review. CAA
§ 307(b), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b).
3
The three-member panel deciding this matter is composed of Environmental Appeal
Judges Aaron P. Avila, Mary Kay Lynch, and Ammie Roseman-Orr.

                                            -2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

   I certify that copies of the foregoing Order Dismissing Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction in

the matter of Ultramar Inc., CAA Appeal No. 24-11, were sent to the following persons in the
manner indicated:

                                        By Email:

Michael S. Regan Bhaskar Chandan
Administrator Senior Air Quality Engineering Manager
U.S. EPA South Coast Air Quality Management
Attn: Operating Permits Group Leader District
Mail Drop: C-504-01 21865 Copley Drive
109 T.W. Alexander Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765
P.O. Box 12055 [email protected]
RTP, NC 27711
[email protected]
[email protected]

Gerardo Rios Genghmun Eng
Air Permits Manager 5215 Lenore St.
Region 9, U.S. EPA Torrance, CA 90503
75 Hawthorne St. [email protected]
San Francisco, CA 94105
[email protected]

              By First Class Certified Mail/ Return Receipt Requested:

Ultramar, Inc.
2402 E. Anaheim St.
Wilmington, CA 90744

    Nov 07, 2024

Dated: ____ ______
Annette Duncan
Administrative Specialist