[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 [email protected]; 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 (``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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