5854 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Notices 

1EPA 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.

n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to 

Intervene—Anyone may submit 

comments, a protest, or a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

requirements of Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. 

In determining the appropriate action to 

take, the Commission will consider all 

protests or other comments filed, but 

only those who file a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

Commission’s Rules may become a 

party to the proceeding. Any comments, 

protests, or motions to intervene must 

be received on or before the specified 

comment date for the particular 

application. 

o. Filing and Service of Responsive 

Documents—Any filings must bear in 

all capital letters the title 

‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR 

‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, as 

applicable, and the Project Number of 

the particular application to which the 

filing refers. A copy of any motion to 

intervene must also be served upon each 

representative of the Applicant 

specified in the particular application. 

p. Agency Comments—Federal, State, 

and local agencies are invited to file 

comments on the described application. 

A copy of the application may be 

obtained by agencies directly from the 

Applicant. If an agency does not file 

comments within the time specified for 

filing comments, it will be presumed to 

have no comments. One copy of an 

agency’s comments must also be sent to 

the Applicant’s representatives.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–201 Filed 2–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

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 

oei.docket@epa.gov; 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Notices 5855

2The 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.

oxides (‘‘NOX’’) 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.

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.

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