6002 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 

Docket no. Date filed Presenter or requester 

4. CP04–37–000 ......................................... 1–24–05 ........................................................... Hon. John Cornyn. 

5. CP04–293–000, CP04–223–000, CP04–

36–000, CP04–41–000.

1–18–05 ........................................................... Hon. Jack Reed. 

6. CP04–293–000, CP04–223–000, CP04–

36–000, CP04–41–000.

1–24–05 ........................................................... Hon. Lincoln Chafee. 

7. CP04–386–000, CP04–400–000 ............ 1–18–05 (1–13–05 Memo to file) .................... Jennifer Kerrigan. 

8. CP04–386–000,CP04–400–000 ............. 1–26–05 (1–24–05 Memo to file) .................... Jennifer Kerrigan. 

9. CP05–3–000 ........................................... 1–18–05 (Memo to file re: 1–12–05 Mtg.) ....... Monica DeAngelo. 

10. CP05–3–000 ......................................... 1–18–05 (Memo to file re: 1–13–05 Mtg.) ....... Monica DeAngelo. 

11. CP05–19–000 ....................................... 1–18–05 ........................................................... Jennifer Kerrigan. 

12. Project No. 1971–079 ........................... 1–24–05 ........................................................... Steven A. Ellis. 

13. Project No. 2150–033 ........................... 1–18–05 ........................................................... Kenneth L. Brettmann 

14. Project No. 2237–013 ........................... 1–12–05 ........................................................... Nicholas Jayjack/Jim Long, et al. 1

1 Memo to File from Nicholas Jayjack attaching email communications and documents provided to the Study Dispute Resolution Panel for the 

Morgan Falls Hydroelectric Project proceeding. 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E5–445 Filed 2–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. RM05–2–000] 

Policy for Selective Discounting by 

Natural Gas Pipelines; Errata Notice 

January 26, 2005. 

On January 25, 2005, the Commission 

issued a Notice of Extension of Time in 

the above-docketed proceeding. The 

date for filing comments should be 

changed from ‘‘May 2, 2005’’ to ‘‘March 

2, 2005’’. Comments on the NOI are due 

March 2, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E5–423 Filed 2–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7869–4] 

Clean Air Act Operating Permit 

Program; Petition for Objection to 

State Operating Permits; Dow 

Chemical Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition 

to object to State operating permits. 

SUMMARY: The EPA Administrator 

signed an order, dated December 22, 

2004, denying the petition to object to 

State operating permits issued by the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality (LDEQ) for the Light 

Hydrocarbon III and Cellulose plants at 

the Dow Chemical Company’s facilities 

in Plaquemine, Iberville Parish, 

Louisiana. Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) 

of the Clean Air Act (Act), the petitioner 

may seek judicial review of this petition 

response in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Any 

petition must be filed within 60 days of 

the date this notice appears in the 

Federal Register, pursuant to section 

307(d) of the Act.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of 

the final order, the petition, and other 

supporting information at EPA Region 6, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–

2733. If you wish to examine these 

documents, you should make an 

appointment at least 24 hours before 

visiting day. The final order is also 

available electronically at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/region07/

programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/

petitiondb2002.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Mary Stanton, Air Permits Section, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–8377, or e-mail at 

Stanton.Marya@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act 

affords EPA a 45-day period to review, 

and, as appropriate, object to operating 

permits proposed by State permitting 

authorities under Title V of the Act, 42 

U.S.C. 7661–7661f. 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 

objected on its own initiative. 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. 

The Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network (LEAN) submitted a petition 

requesting that the Administrator object 

to title V operating permits issued by 

LDEQ to the Dow Chemical Company, 

for modifications to its Light 

Hydrocarbon III and Cellulose Plants at 

Dow’s facility in Plaquemine, Iberville 

Parish, Louisiana. 

The petition maintains that the 

permits are inconsistent with the Act 

because: 

(1) The emission reduction credits 

(ERCs) used as offsets are not valid 

because the underlying emission 

reductions were required, and not 

surplus; 

(2) The ERCs are not valid because 

LDEQ improperly concluded that the 

underlying emission reductions 

occurred within 10 years of the date the 

offsets were used; 

(3) Dow’s application for ERCs was 

not timely under the requirements of the 

Louisiana Administrative Code; 

(4) LDEQ’s Basis For Decision on the 

ERC application failed to respond to all 

reasonable public comments; 

(5) The permits should have required 

controls designed to achieve the Lowest 

Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) 

because Dow had insufficient offsets to 

avoid LAER; 

(6) Offsets should have been required 

for 33.34 tons per year of emission 

increases of volatile organic compounds 

from emission points C6 ,C7, and LN, 

and LDEQ was inconsistent in granting 

those emission increases while also 

maintaining that the facilities were in 

compliance with the previously 

permitted emissions limitations; and 

(7) In establishing the baseline for 

sulfur dioxide emissions for purposes of 

determining whether the permits 

constituted a significant modification, 

LDEQ failed to either use actual 

emissions over the preceding two years, 

or make a determination that a different 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Notices 6003

time period was more representative of 

normal source operation. 

On December 22, 2004, the 

Administrator issued an order denying 

the petition. The order explains the 

reasons for the Administrator’s decision 

that the petition does not demonstrate 

that the permits are not in compliance 

with the Act.

Dated: January 26, 2005. 

Richard E. Greene, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 05–2181 Filed 2–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–6660–1] 

Environmental Impact Statements and 

Regulations; Availability of EPA 

Comments 

Availability of EPA comments 

prepared pursuant to the Environmental 

Review Process (ERP), under section 

309 of the Clean Air Act and section 

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act, as amended. Requests for 

copies of EPA comments can be directed 

to the Office of Federal Activities at 

(202) 564–7167. An explanation of the 

ratings assigned to draft environmental 

impact statements (EISs) was published 

in the Federal Register dated April 2, 

2004 (69 FR 17403). 

Draft EISs 

ERP No. D–AFS–F65047–IN Rating 

LO, German Ridge Restoration Project, 

To Restore Native Hardwood 

Communities, Implementation, Hoosier 

National Forest, Tell City Ranger 

District, Perry County, IN. 

Summary: EPA has no objections with 

the proposed restoration project; 

however, we recommended that a 

schedule for prescribed burns and 

timber removal be included in the FEIS. 

ERP No. D–BLM–K65274–NV Rating 

EC2, Las Vegas Valley Disposal 

Boundary Project, Disposal and Use of 

Public Land under the Management of 

(BLM), Implementation, Clark County, 

NV. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about impacts 

to wetlands and Waters of the U.S., 

general conformity under the Clean Air 

Act, the analysis of alternatives, and 

consultation with tribal governments. 

ERP No. D–FHW–C40164–NY Rating 

EC2, NY Route 17—Elmira to Chemung 

Project, Proposed Highway 

Reconstruction, New Highway 

Construction, Bridge Rehabilitation/

Replacement, Funding and U.S. Army 

COE Section 404 Permit, Town and City 

of Elmira, Town of Ashland and 

Chemung, Chemung County, NY. 

Summary: EPA has concerns with the 

proposed project due to indirect impacts 

to water quality and wetlands, and 

suggested firmer mitigation measures be 

implemented to address these concerns. 

ERP No. D–FHW–D40325–PA Rating 

EC2, U.S. 219 Improvements Project, 

Meyersdale to Somerset, SR 6219, 

Section 020, Funding, U.S. COE Section 

404 Permits, Somerset County, PA. 

Summary: EPA has environmental 

concerns with the proposed project 

regarding impacts to wetlands, 

endangered species, aquatic resources, 

air quality, and environmental justice. 

ERP No. D–FHW–F40426–OH Rating 

EC2, Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal (Tier 

1) Project, To Implement a Multi-Modal 

Transportation Program between the 

City of Cincinnati and Eastern Suburbs 

in Hamilton and Clermont Counties, 

OH. 

Summary: EPA has concerns with the 

proposed project, primarily regarding a 

new bridge span across the Little Miami 

River, a designated Wild and Scenic 

River. These concerns include 

unresolved questions regarding visual 

impacts, and cumulative, indirect and 

secondary impacts to the river’s 

identified characteristics. 

ERP No. D–FHW–J40167–UT Rating 

EC2, Brown Park Road Project, 

Reconstruction (Paving) and Partial Realignment from Red Creek to Colorado 

State Line, Diamond Mountain Resource 

Management Plan Amendment (BLM), 

U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, 

Daggett County, UT. 

Summary: EPA has environmental 

concerns with the proposed project 

regarding habitat fragmentation, impacts 

to wildlife due to vehicle collisions, and 

the introduction of invasive species. 

ERP No. D–NIH–D81035–MD Rating 

EC2, National Institutes of Health (NIH) 

Master Plan 2003 Update, National 

Institutes of Health Main Campus—

Bethesda, MD, Montgomery County, 

MD. 

Summary: EPA expressed concerns 

regarding impacts from land 

development and storm water 

management. EPA requested that the 

final EIS address the function and value 

of the existing hardwoods that will be 

lost, and provide an outline of the 

mitigation.

ERP No. DS–BIA–A65165–00 Rating 

EC2, Programmatic—Navajo Nation 10-

Year Forest Management Plan, New and 

Updated Information on Alternatives, 

Chuska Mountains and Defiance Plateau 

Area, AZ and NM. 

Summary: EPA expressed concerns 

regarding cumulative impacts and 

implementation of the Range 

Assessment and Management Plan 

(RAMP), and requested that existing 

environmental information be 

incorporated into the alternatives and 

cumulative impact analyses. 

ERP No. DS–FHW–E40325–NC Rating 

EC2, Eastern Section of the WinstonSalem Northern Beltway, U.S. 52 south 

to I–40 Business and I–40 Business 

south to U.S. 311, Improvements to the 

Surface Transportation Network, TIP 

Project Nos. U–2579 and U–2579A, 

Forsyth County, NC. 

Summary: EPA continues to have 

environmental concerns with the 

proposed project regarding the number 

of residential relocations required as 

well as impacts to aquatic stream habitat 

and water supply. 

Final EISs 

ERP No. F–AFS–E65067–00 Land 

Between the Lakes National Recreation 

Area, Proposes to Revise TVA’s 1994 

Natural Resources Management Plan, 

Development of a Land Management 

Resource Plan or Area Plan, Gold Pond, 

Trigg and Lyon Counties, KY and 

Stewart County, TN. 

Summary: The Final EIS has 

addressed our concerns and EPA has no 

objections to the project. 

ERP No. F–COE–G39041–LA 

Programmatic EIS—Louisiana Coastal 

Area (LCA) Ecosystem Restoration 

Study, Implementation, Tentatively 

Selected Plan, Mississippi River, LA. 

Summary: EPA continues to express 

full support for the Louisiana Coastal 

Area Plan, recognizing that the Plan is 

the appropriate next step in the ongoing 

effort to address wetland and barrier 

island loss in coastal Louisiana. 

ERP No. F–DHS–D11036–MD 

National Biodefense Analysis and 

Countermeasures Center (NBACC) 

Facility at Fort Detrick, Construction 

and Operation, Fort Detrick, Frederick 

County, MD. 

Summary: The Final EIS provided 

adequate responses to EPA’s comments. 

ERP No. F–FHW–E40795–NC U.S.–17 

Interstate Corridor Improvements, south 

of NC–1127 (Possum Track Road) to 

north of NC–1418 (Roberson Road) 

Funding and Permit Issuance, City of 

Washington and Town of Chocowinity 

Vicinity, Beaufort and Pitt Counties, NC. 

Summary: EPA has no objections to 

the preferred alternative. 

ERP No. F–FHW–F40368–WI U.S.–12 

Highway Corridor Project, Improvement 

from 1H90/94 at Lake Delton south to 

Ski Hi Road, Selected Preferred 

Alternative, Funding and U.S. Army 

COE Section 404 Permit Issuance, Sauk 

County, WI.