64924 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Notices 

S 67°22′07′′ E a distance of 182.93 feet, 

N 07°11′27′′ W a distance of 21.98 feet; 

Thence a distance of 90.82 feet along a 

curve to the right having a radius of 343.24 

feet and a chord bearing of N 01°18′15′′ E and 

a distance of 90.55 feet; thence N 14°53′17′′

E a distance of 400.64 feet to a concrete 

monument 00–Y–164 having coordinates of 

N=610,246.3352 and E=2,486,234.5124; 

Thence N 41°03′52′′ W a distance of 189.93 

feet to the south side of Midway Turnpike; 

thence with the south side of Midway 

Turnpike, N 62°17′33′′ E a distance of 109.31 

feet; 

Thence a distance of 84.23 feet along a 

curve to the left having a radius of 220.04 feet 

and a chord bearing of N 53°22′36′′ E and a 

distance of 83.72 feet; thence N 42°24′37′′ E 

a distance of 55.09 feet; 

Thence a distance of 52.98 feet along a 

curve to the right having a radius of 104.83 

feet and a chord bearing N 56°53′20′′ E and 

a distance of 52.42 feet; thence N 71°22′04′′

E a distance of 57.71 feet; 

Thence a distance of 68.12 feet along a 

curve to the left having a radius of 109.69 feet 

and a chord bearing of N 53°34′39′′ E and a 

distance of 67.03 feet; thence N 36°34′16′′ E 

a distance of 62.79 feet; 

Thence a distance of 164.30 feet along a 

curve to the right having a radius of 164.16 

feet and a chord bearing of N 66°37′43′′ E and 

a distance of 157.53 feet; thence a distance 

of 127.85 feet along a curve to the left having 

a radius of 110.10 feet and a chord bearing 

of 

N 64°41′34′′ E a distance of 120.79 feet, 

N 31°29′41′′ E a distance of 146.26 feet; 

Thence a distance of 125.97 feet along a 

curve to the right having a radius of 136.27 

feet and a chord bearing of N 57°58′42′′ E a 

distance of 121.53 feet; 

N 84°27′43′′ E a distance of 41.81 feet; 

Thence a distance of 222.36 feet along a 

curve to the left having a radius of 283.62 feet 

and a chord bearing of N 62°00′08′′ E a 

distance of 216.70 feet; 

N 39°32′32′′ E a distance of 21.09 feet; 

Thence a distance of 148.42 feet along a 

curve to the right having a radius of 144.69 

feet and a chord bearing of N 68°55′47′′ E a 

distance of 141.99 feet; 

S 81°40′59′′ E a distance of 126.15 feet; 

Thence a distance of 196.21 feet along a 

curve to the left having a radius of 453.57 feet 

and a chord bearing of N 85°55′28′′ E a 

distance of 194.68 feet; 

N 70°37′33′′ E distance of 150.03 feet; 

Thence leaving said south side of Midway 

Turnpike S 34°14′27′′ East a distance of 

1339.32 feet to the Point of Beginning, and 

containing 81.33 acres, more or less. 

Exclusion Area No. 2 

Beginning at concrete monument 00–Y–

166 having coordinates of N=608,866.1167 

and E=2,491,528.3694, said point being S 

53°08′ East a distance of 1175 feet from the 

centerline intersection of Second Street and 

Scarboro Road; thence along the following 

bearings and distances running 5 feet outside 

and parallel to a chain link fence to a point 

located by iron pins at each of the calls: 

S 11°57′51′′ E a distance of 190.83 feet, 

S 20°58′39′′ W a distance of 162.04 feet, 

N 82°41′43′′ W a distance of 326.09 feet, 

N 20°55′08′′ W a distance of 161.87 feet, 

N 70°55′21′′ W a distance of 256.95 feet, 

N 21°25′10′′ E a distance of 138.58 feet, 

S 70°56′19′′ E a distance of 255.01 feet, 

N 29°13′41′′ E a distance of 153.55 feet, 

N 36°55′00′′ E a distance of 77.89 feet to 

concrete monument 00–Y–165 set having 

coordinates of N=609,046.7759 and 

E=2,491,299.2370; 

Thence S 51°44′46′′ E a distance of 291.79 

feet to the Point of Beginning, said parcel 

containing 4.36 acres, more or less. 

The net area included within the boundary 

to be posted for 229 security purposes is 

3,017.81 acres, more or less.

[FR Doc. 04–24939 Filed 11–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EL05–19–000] 

Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, 

Inc., Lyntegar Electric Cooperative, 

Inc., Farmers’ Electric Cooperative, 

Inc., Lea County Electric Cooperative, 

Inc., Central Valley Electric 

Cooperative, Inc., Roosevelt County 

Electric Cooperative, Inc., 

Complainants v. Southwestern Public 

Service Company, Respondent; Notice 

of Complaint 

November 3, 2004. 

Take notice that on November 2, 

2004, Golden Spread Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. (Golden Spread) 

Lyntegar Electric Cooperative, Inc., 

Farmers’ Electric Cooperative, Inc., Lea 

County Electric Cooperative, Inc., 

Central Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc., 

and Roosevelt County Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. (collectively referred 

to as the Cooperative Customer Group) 

filed a Complaint Requesting 

Investigation and Hearing of Cost-Based 

Rates and Fuel Adjustment Clause 

Charges, and Establishment of Refund 

Effective Date against Respondent 

against Southwestern Public Service 

Company (SPS). The Cooperative 

Customer Group states that (1) SPS’

cost-based rates for full and partial 

requirements service are excessive, are 

not just and reasonable and are unduly 

discriminatory or preferential; and (2) 

SPS has historically and continues to 

violate the applicable fuel charge 

adjustment clause (FCAC) provisions of 

the FERC-filed rate schedules applicable 

to each of its customers, and the 

Commission’s FCAC Regulations. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing must file in 

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 

Protests will be considered by the 

Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken, but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceeding. Any person wishing to 

become a party must file a notice of 

intervention or motion to intervene, as 

appropriate. The Respondent’s answer 

and all interventions, or protests must 

be filed on or before the comment date. 

The Respondent’s answer, motions to 

intervene, and protests must be served 

on the Complainants. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper using the 

‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 14 copies 

of the protest or intervention to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

This filing is accessible on-line at 

http://www.ferc.gov, using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive e-mail notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on 

December 2, 2004.

Linda Mitry, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–3077 Filed 11–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[Regional Docket Nos. II–2002–05, –06, –11; 

FRL–7835–8] 

Clean Air Act Operating Permit 

Program; Petitions for Objection to 

State Operating Permits for the 

Keyspan Generation Far Rockaway 

Station, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, and 

the New York City Department of 

Environmental Protection North River 

Water Pollution Control Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final orders, 

addressing three State operating 

permits. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

that the EPA Administrator has 

addressed four citizen petitions asking 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Notices 64925

EPA to object to operating permits 

issued to three facilities by the New 

York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 

Specifically, the Administrator has 

partially granted and partially denied 

three petitions submitted by the New 

York Public Interest Research Group 

(NYPIRG) to object to the state operating 

permits issued to the Keyspan 

Generation Far Rockaway Station, 

Motiva Enterprises, LLC, and the New 

York City Department of Environmental 

Protection (NYCDEP) North River Water 

Pollution Control Plant. Additionally, 

the Administrator has partially granted 

and partially denied a petition 

submitted by the NYCDEP, requesting 

our objection to its own operating 

permit for the North River plant. 

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

Clean Air Act (Act), petitioners may 

seek judicial review of those portions of 

the petitions 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 orders, the petitions, and other 

supporting information at the EPA 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, New 

York, New York 10007–1866. If you 

wish to examine these documents, you 

should make an appointment at least 24 

hours before visiting day. Additionally, 

the final orders are available 

electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/

region07/programs/artd/air/title5/

petitiondb/petitiondb2002.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Riva, Chief, Permitting Section, 

Air Programs Branch, Division of 

Environmental Planning and Protection, 

EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866, telephone (212) 637–4074.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act 

affords EPA a 45-day period to review, 

and object to as appropriate, operating 

permits proposed by state permitting 

authorities. 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 state 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. 

I. Keyspan 

On July 5, 2002, the EPA received a 

petition from NYPIRG, requesting that 

EPA object to the issuance of the title V 

operating permit for the Keyspan 

Generation Far Rockaway Station. On 

September 24, 2004, the Administrator 

issued an order partially granting and 

partially denying the Keyspan petition. 

The order explains the reasons behind 

EPA’s conclusion that the NYSDEC 

must determine whether to retain or 

delete a condition relating to burning 

waste-oil in the utility boiler. If this 

condition is to be retained, the NYSDEC 

must incorporate additional 

requirements, and discuss applicability 

in the corresponding Permit Review 

Report. The order also explains EPA’s 

reasons for denying NYPIRG’s 

remaining claims. 

II. Motiva 

On May 23, 2002, the EPA received a 

petition from NYPIRG, requesting that 

EPA object to the issuance of the title V 

operating permit for Motiva Enterprises, 

LLC. On September 24, 2004, the 

Administrator issued an order partially 

granting and partially denying the 

Motiva petition. The order explains the 

reasons behind EPA’s conclusion that 

the NYSDEC must: (1) Provide 

information on the methods used in 

creating the emission statement; (2) 

prescribe opacity monitoring for the 

Vapor Recovery Unit; (3) include 

additional requirements that are 

applicable to bulk gasoline terminals; 

(4) state that reporting is due semiannually for the facility’s average daily 

gasoline throughput; (5) specify which 

type of control is in place at the Fixed 

Roof storage tanks; (6) specify that a 

record will be generated whenever 

activities pertaining to the replacement 

of any liquid mounted seal are 

performed; (7) state that facility is 

subject to a gasoline throughput limit of 

526,900,000 gallons/yr; and (8) 

reference emission calculations together 

with any applicable technical basis. The 

order also explains EPA’s reasons for 

denying NYPIRG’s remaining claims. 

III. North River 

On October 1 and 4, 2002, the EPA 

received petitions from NYPIRG and the 

NYCDEP, requesting that EPA object to 

the issuance of the title V operating 

permit for the NYCDEP North River 

Water Pollution Control Plant. On 

September 24, 2004, the Administrator 

issued an order partially granting and 

partially denying both North River 

petitions. The order explains the 

reasons behind EPA’s conclusion that 

the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: 

(1) Move the hydrogen sulfide 

requirements to the state-only 

enforceable portion of the permit; (2) 

include requirements for exempt 

activities where applicable; (3) require 

annual certification of federally 

enforceable terms as directed by EPA; 

(4) include the SIP ‘‘excuse’’ provision 

codified at 6 NYCRR section 201.5(e); 

(5) include additional monitoring for 

NOX from the engines; (6) specify the 

degree of air cleaning required by 6 

NYCRR section 212.4(a) for the 

wastewater, sludge and miscellaneous 

processes, and include appropriate 

monitoring; and (7) clarify the 

applicability of 6 NYCRR section 230.2 

and include appropriate permit 

conditions. In addition, several issues 

require the NYSDEC to provide a 

revised statement of basis that: (1) 

Explains how the sulfur in fuel 

monitoring is consistent with the city’s 

contract; (2) clarifies the rationale for 

including multiple monitoring 

requirements for opacity from the 

engines; (3) clarifies the applicability of 

exempt and trivial activities as well as 

the general opacity regulation; (4) 

explains its reasons for concluding the 

facility is a non-industrial POTW; and 

(5) clarifies the applicability of CAA 

section 112(r). The order also explains 

EPA’s reasons for denying the 

petitioners’ remaining claims.

Dated: November 1, 2004. 

Jane M. Kenny, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 04–24923 Filed 11–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRC–7835–1] 

Notice of Disclosure of Confidential 

Business Information Obtained Under 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act to EPA Contractor Techlaw, 

Incorporated and its Subcontractors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice, request for comment.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) hereby 

complies with the requirements of 40 

CFR 2.310(h) for authorization to 

disclose to TechLaw, Inc. of San 

Francisco, California, and its 

subcontractors, Superfund confidential 

business information (‘‘CBI’’) submitted 

to EPA Region 9.

DATES: Comments may be submitted by 

November 24, 2004.