[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5854-5855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2623]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7619-2]


Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Petitions For Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public 
comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as 
amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a 
proposed settlement agreement to address one of four issues briefed in 
lawsuits filed by Sierra Club and Georgia ForestWatch (collectively, 
``Petitioners''): Sierra Club v. Leavitt, Nos. 03-10262-F & 03-10263-F, 
and Georgia ForestWatch v. Leavitt, Nos. 03-10264-F and 03-10265-F 
(11th Cir.) (consolidated). On or about January 16, 2003, Petitioners 
filed petitions for review of four orders in which the Administrator 
denied Petitioners' administrative petitions requesting that EPA object 
to operating permits issued by the Georgia Department of Natural 
Resources, Environmental Protection Division (``Georgia EPD''), under 
title V of the Act for four facilities in Georgia. The petitions for 
review, which have been consolidated, seek a court order requiring EPA 
to object to the permits based on Petitioners' allegations that the 
permits fail to comply with aspects of Georgia's title V program, the 
Act and EPA's title V implementing regulations. One of Petitioners' 
allegations is that EPA was required to object to the title V operating 
permit issued by Georgia EPD for the Monroe Power facility in Monroe 
(Walton County), Georgia, because the permit contains inadequate 
monitoring for carbon monoxide. Under the terms of the proposed 
settlement agreement, EPA and Petitioners (collectively, the 
``Parties'') jointly would request that the court stay the oral 
argument (scheduled for January 29, 2004) and hold the consolidated 
cases in abeyance while Georgia EPD proposes to reopen and revise the 
Monroe Power title V permit to require continuous monitoring of carbon 
monoxide emissions from two combustion turbines and to include certain 
related requirements. If the permit were revised consistent with the 
draft permit revisions attached to the proposed settlement agreement, 
the Parties jointly would notify the court that their dispute 
concerning the Monroe Power carbon monoxide monitoring issue had been 
resolved and would ask that the court set a date for oral argument on 
the remaining issues in the consolidated cases.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be 
received by March 8, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket ID number OGC-
2004-0002, online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket (EPA's preferred 
method); by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#234c464a0d474c40484657634653420d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2cdc7cb8cc6cdc1c9c7d6e2c7d2c38cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>; mailed to EPA Docket Center, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be 
formatted in Wordperfect or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing 
address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry E. Rodgers, Air and Radiation 
Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
telephone (202) 564-5671.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement

    On or about January 16, 2003, Petitioners filed four petitions for 
review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 
challenging four orders in which the Administrator of the EPA denied 
administrative petitions filed by Sierra Club and Georgia ForestWatch. 
The administrative petitions asked the Administrator to object to 
operating permits issued by the Georgia Department of Natural 
Resources, Environmental Protection Division (``Georgia EPD''), 
pursuant to title V of the Clean Air Act (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7661-
7661f, for four facilities in Georgia: (1) King America Finishing, 
Inc.; (2) Monroe Power Company; (3) Shaw Industries, Inc., Plant No. 2; 
and (4) Shaw Industries, Inc., Plant No. 80 (collectively, 
``Shaw'').\1\ The petitions for review asked the court to order EPA to 
object to the permits based on Petitioners' allegations that the 
permits violate aspects of Georgia's title V operating permits program 
and fail to meet certain requirements of the Act and EPA's title V 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 70. Specifically, Petitioners 
sought to require EPA to object to the permits issued to King 
Finishing, Monroe Power and Shaw based on the State's requirements for 
reporting monitoring results and the content of the State's public 
notices of draft permits. Sierra Club also sought to require EPA to 
object to the King Finishing permit because Georgia EPD did not use a 
mailing list as one of several means of providing public notice of the 
draft permit. Finally, Sierra Club sought to require EPA to object to 
the Monroe Power permit based on allegations that the permit contains 
inadequate monitoring requirements for carbon monoxide (``CO'') 
emissions from two combustion turbines. The permit relies on continuous 
monitoring of nitrogen

[[Page 5855]]

oxides (``NO<INF>X</INF>'') as a surrogate for CO, rather than direct 
monitoring of CO. In an order signed on October 9, 2002, the 
Administrator found that this approach complies with the Act and 
therefore denied Sierra Club's administrative petition for an objection 
to the Monroe Power permit based on the adequacy of the CO monitoring 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA published notice of the orders at 67 FR 69739, 69740 
(November 19, 2002), and at 67 FR 79610, 79611 (December 30, 2002). 
The orders are available at: http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitiondb2001.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed settlement agreement only concerns the Parties' 
dispute over the adequacy of the CO monitoring requirements in the 
Monroe Power permit. It does not address the other issues in the 
consolidated cases. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the 
Parties jointly would request that the court stay the oral argument 
(scheduled for January 29, 2004) and hold the consolidated cases in 
abeyance while Georgia EPD proposes to reopen and revise the title V 
operating permit issued for the Monroe Power facility in Monroe (Walton 
County), Georgia, to require continuous monitoring of CO emissions and 
to include certain related requirements as set forth in the draft 
permit revisions attached to the proposed settlement agreement.\2\ 
Petitioners could ask the court to lift the stay if certain events 
specified in the proposed settlement agreement occur (e.g., if Georgia 
EPD did not propose the draft permit revisions within a certain time) 
and the Parties could not resolve their dispute through mediation. If 
the permit were revised consistent with the draft permit revisions 
attached to the proposed settlement agreement, the Parties jointly 
would notify the court that their dispute concerning the Monroe Power 
CO monitoring issue had been resolved and would ask that the court set 
a new date for oral argument on the remaining issues in the 
consolidated cases. The proposed settlement agreement would reserve 
Petitioners' right to seek attorneys' fees from the court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Parties filed a ``Joint Motion To Stay Proceedings 
Pending Settlement Discussions'' on January 13, 2004. In an order 
dated January 14, 2004, U.S. Circuit Judge R. Lanier Anderson 
granted the joint motion and directed EPA to file monthly status 
reports every thirty (30) days beginning February 17, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication 
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to 
the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as 
parties or interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the 
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed 
settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations 
that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, 
or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the 
Department of Justice determine, based on any comment which may be 
submitted, that consent to the settlement agreement should be 
withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement

A. How Can I Get a Copy of the Settlement?

    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. OGC-2004-0002 which contains a copy of the settlement 
agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing 
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA 
Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public 
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official 
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that 
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, 
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available 
for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives 
them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted 
material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official 
public docket or in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is 
that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in 
a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket 
but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official 
public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available 
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available 
docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. 
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified 
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period 
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late 
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other 
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD 
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or 
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included 
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, 
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot 
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you 
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. 
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail 
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an 
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's 
electronic public docket, your e-mail address is automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official 
public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: January 28, 2004.
Lisa K. Friedman,
Associate General Counsel, Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of 
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 04-2623 Filed 2-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>