50322 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices 

a rulemaking of particular applicability 

involving rates or services applicable to 

public property. 

Environmental Compliance 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.); Council 

on Environmental Quality Regulations 

(40 CFR parts 1500–1508); and DOE 

NEPA Regulations (10 CFR part 1021), 

Western has determined that this action 

is categorically excluded from preparing 

an environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. 

Determination Under Executive Order 

12866 

Western has an exemption from 

centralized regulatory review under 

Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no 

clearance of this notice by the Office of 

Management and Budget is required. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

Western has determined that this rule 

is exempt from congressional 

notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 

801 because the action is a rulemaking 

of particular applicability relating to 

rates or services and involves matters of 

procedure. 

Submission to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission 

The interim ratesetting formula and 

FY 2006 Base Charge and rates herein 

confirmed, approved, and placed into 

effect, together with supporting 

documents, will be submitted to the 

Commission for confirmation and final 

approval. 

Order 

In view of the foregoing and under the 

authority delegated to me, I confirm and 

approve on an interim basis, effective 

October 1, 2005, Rate Schedule BCP–F7, 

for the Boulder Canyon Project of the 

Western Area Power Administration. 

The rate schedule shall remain in effect 

on an interim basis, pending the 

Commission’s confirmation and 

approval of it or substitute rates on a 

final basis through September 30, 2010.

Dated: August 11, 2005.

Clay Sell,

Deputy Secretary.

Rate Schedule BCP–F7 (Supersedes 

Schedule BCP–F6) 

United States Department of Energy, 

Western Area Power Administration 

Boulder Canyon Project, Arizona, 

Nevada, Southern California; Schedule 

of Rates for Electric Service 

Effective: The first day of the first full 

billing period beginning on or after 

October 1, 2005, and remaining in effect 

through September 30, 2010, or until 

superseded. 

Available: In the marketing area 

serviced by the Boulder Canyon Project 

(BCP). 

Applicable: To power Contractors 

served by the BCP supplied through one 

meter, at one point of delivery, unless 

otherwise provided by contract. 

Character and Conditions of Service:

Alternating current at 60 hertz, threephase, delivered and metered at the 

voltages and points established by 

contract. 

Base Charge: The total charge paid by 

a Contractor for annual capacity and 

energy based on the annual revenue 

requirement. The base charge shall be 

composed of an energy component and 

a capacity component: 

Energy Charge: Each Contractor shall 

be billed monthly an energy charge 

equal to the Rate Year Energy Dollar 

multiplied by the Contractor’s firm 

energy percentage multiplied by the 

Contractor’s monthly energy ratio as 

provided by contract. 

Capacity Charge: Each Contractor 

shall be billed monthly a capacity 

charge equal to the Rate Year Capacity 

Dollar divided by 12 multiplied by the 

Contractor’s contingent capacity 

percentage as provided by contract. 

Forecast Rates: Energy: Shall be equal 

to the Rate Year Energy Dollar divided 

by the lesser of the total master schedule 

energy or 4,501.001 million kWhs. This 

rate is to be applied for use of excess 

energy, unauthorized overruns, and 

water pump energy. 

Capacity: Shall be equal to the Rate 

Year Capacity Dollar divided by 

1,951,000 kWs, to be applied for use of 

unauthorized overruns. 

Calculated Energy Rate: Within 90 

days after the end of each rate year, a 

Calculated Energy Rate shall be 

calculated. If the energy deemed 

delivered is greater than 4,501.001 

million kWhs, then the Calculated 

Energy Rate shall be applied to each 

Contractor’s energy deemed delivered. 

A credit or debit shall be established 

based on the difference between the 

Contractor’s Energy Dollar and the 

Contractor’s actual energy charge, to be 

applied the following month calculated 

or as soon as possible thereafter. 

Lower Basin Development Fund 

Contribution Charge: The contribution 

charge is 4.5 mills/kWh for each kWh 

measured or scheduled to an Arizona 

purchaser and 2.5 mills/kWh for each 

kWh measured or scheduled to a 

California or Nevada purchaser, except 

for purchased power. 

Billing for Unauthorized Overruns:

For each billing period in which there 

is a contract violation involving an 

unauthorized overrun of the contractual 

power obligations, such overrun shall be 

billed at 10 times the Forecast Energy 

Rate and Forecast Capacity Rate. The 

contribution charge shall be applied 

also to each kWh of overrun. 

Adjustments: None.

[FR Doc. 05–17000 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[AMS–FRL–7961–1] 

California State Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of 

Federal Preemption; Notice of Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice Regarding Waiver of 

Federal Preemption. 

SUMMARY: EPA today, pursuant to 

section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act 

(Act), 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), is granting 

California its request for a waiver of 

federal preemption for its heavy-duty 

diesel regulations for 2007 and 

subsequent model year vehicles and 

engines (2007 California Heavy Duty 

Diesel Engine Standards) and related 

test procedures including the not-toexceed (NTE) and supplemental steadystate tests (supplemental test 

procedures) to determine compliance 

with applicable standards. By letter 

dated July 16, 2004, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) requested that 

EPA grant California a waiver of federal 

preemption for its 2007 California 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards, 

which primarily align California’s 

standards and test procedures with the 

federal standards and test procedures 

for 2007 and subsequent model year 

vehicles and engines.

ADDRESSES: The Agency’s Decision 

Document, containing an explanation of 

the Assistant Administrator’s decision, 

as well as all documents relied upon in 

making that decision, including those 

submitted to EPA by CARB, are 

available at the EPA’s Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center (Air 

Docket). Materials relevant to this 

decision are contained in Docket No. 

OAR–2004–0132. The docket is located 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices 50323

1The CARB Board approved the 2007 Heavy Duty 

Diesel Engine Standards by Resolution 01–38 on 

October 25, 2001 (See Attachment 1 to CARB’s July 

16, 2004 Waiver Request Letter). The regulations 

covered by today’s waiver include CARB’s 

amendments to title 13, California Code of 

Regulations (CCR), section 1956.8. The specific 

regulatory text and the incorporated document 

covered by the 2007 Heavy Duty Diesel Engine 

Standards regulation are: section 1956.8, title 13, 

CCR, as shown in Attachment 2 to CARB’s Waiver 

Request Letter, and amendments to the related test 

procedures incorporated in section 1956.8(b), 

‘‘California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for 1985 and Subsequent Model HeavyDuty Diesel Engines and Vehicles,’’ also shown in 

Attachment 2. For further discussion of the 

regulations covered by today’s decision please see 

the Decision Document.

at The Air Docket, room B–108, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, and may be viewed between 

8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday. The telephone number is (202) 

566–1742. A reasonable fee may be 

charged by EPA for copying docket 

material. Additionally, an electronic 

version of the public docket is available 

through EPA’s electronic public docket 

and comment system. 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. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public docket does not include 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Once in the 

electronic docket system, select 

‘‘search,’’ then key in the appropriate 

docket ID number for Docket OAR–

2004–0132. 

Electronic copies of this Notice and 

the accompanying Decision Document 

are available via the Internet on the 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

(OTAQ) Web site (http://www.epa.gov/

OTAQ). Users can find these documents 

by accessing the OTAQ Web site and 

looking at the path entitled, 

‘‘Regulations.’’ This service is free of 

charge, except for any cost you already 

incur for Internet connectivity. The 

electronic Federal Register version of 

the Notice is made available on the day 

of publication on the primary Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPAAIR). 

Please note that due to differences 

between the software used to develop 

the documents and the software into 

which the documents may be 

downloaded, changes in format, page 

length, etc., may occur.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Dickinson, Certification and 

Compliance Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel 

Rios Building (6405J), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 

(202) 343–9256. E-Mail Address: 

Dickinson.David@EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I have 

decided to grant California a waiver of 

federal preemption pursuant to section 

209(b) of the Act for the 2007 California 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards.1

Section 209(b) of the Act provides 

that, if certain criteria are met, the 

Administrator shall waive federal 

preemption for California to enforce 

new motor vehicle emission standards 

and accompanying enforcement 

procedures. The criteria include 

consideration of whether California 

arbitrarily and capriciously determined 

that its standards are, in the aggregate, 

at least as protective of public health 

and welfare as the applicable Federal 

standards; whether California needs 

State standards to meet compelling and 

extraordinary conditions; and whether 

California’s amendments are consistent 

with section 202(a) of the Act. 

As further explained in the Decision 

Document supporting today’s decision, 

EPA received a series of comments 

supporting CARB’s request for a waiver 

of federal preemption. EPA did not 

receive any comment suggesting that 

CARB’s request should be denied or a 

decision delayed based on the criteria 

set forth in section 209(b) of the Act. 

EPA did receive comment that the 

waiver of federal preemption should 

otherwise be delayed, but for the 

reasons set forth below and further 

discussed in the Decision Document, 

EPA is granting CARB’s request for a 

waiver of federal preemption. 

CARB determined that its 2007 

California Heavy Duty Diesel Engine 

Standards do not cause California’s 

standards, in the aggregate, to be less 

protective of public health and welfare 

than the applicable Federal standards. 

No information has been submitted to 

demonstrate that California’s standards, 

in the aggregate, are less protective of 

public health and welfare than the 

applicable Federal standards. Thus, EPA 

cannot make a finding that CARB’s 

determination, that its 2007 California 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards 

are, in the aggregate, at least as 

protective of public health and welfare, 

is arbitrary and capricious. 

CARB has continually demonstrated 

the existence of compelling and 

extraordinary conditions justifying the 

need for its own motor vehicle pollution 

control program, which includes the 

subject 2007 California Heavy Duty 

Diesel Engine Standards. No 

information has been submitted to 

demonstrate that California no longer 

has a compelling and extraordinary 

need for its own program. Therefore, I 

agree that California continues to have 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions which require its own 

program, and, thus, I cannot deny the 

waiver on the basis of the lack of 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions. 

CARB has submitted information that 

the requirements of its 2007 California 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards are 

technologically feasible and present no 

inconsistency with federal requirements 

and are, therefore, consistent with 

section 202(a) of the Act. No 

information has been presented to 

demonstrate that CARB’s requirements 

are inconsistent with section 202(a) of 

the Act, nor does EPA have any other 

reason to believe that CARB’s 

requirements are inconsistent with 

section 202(a). Thus, I cannot find that 

California’s 2007 California Heavy Duty 

Diesel Engine Standards are 

inconsistent with section 202(a) of the 

Act. Accordingly, I hereby grant the 

waiver requested by California. 

This decision will affect not only 

persons in California but also the 

manufacturers outside the State who 

must comply with California’s 

requirements in order to produce motor 

vehicles for sale in California. For this 

reason, I hereby determine and find that 

this is a final action of national 

applicability. 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 

judicial review of this final action may 

be sought only in the United States 

Court of Appeal for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review 

must be filed by October 25, 2005. 

Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, 

judicial review of this final action may 

not be obtained in subsequent 

enforcement proceedings. 

As with past waiver decisions, this 

action is not a rule as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is 

exempt from review by the Office of 

Management and Budget as required for 

rules and regulations by Executive 

Order 12866. 

In addition, this action is not a rule 

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 601(2). Therefore, EPA 

has not prepared a supporting 

regulatory flexibility analysis addressing 

the impact of this action on small 

business entities. 

Finally, the Administrator has 

delegated the authority to make 

determinations regarding waivers of 

Federal preemption under section 

209(b) of the Act to the Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation.

50324 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices 

Dated: August 19, 2005. 

Jeffrey R. Holmstead, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 05–17037 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7960–5] 

Notice of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Final Determination for 

BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Facility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

SUMMARY: This document announces 

that on June 21, 2005, the 

Environmental Appeals Board (‘‘EAB’’) 

of EPA denied review of a petition for 

review of a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (‘‘PSD’’) permit (‘‘Permit’’) 

that EPA Region 10 and the State of 

Washington’s Energy Facility Site 

Evaluation Council (‘‘EFSEC’’) issued to 

BP West Coast Products, L.L.C. (‘‘BP’’) 

for construction and operation of the BP 

Cherry Point Cogeneration Facility 

(‘‘Facility’’), a natural gas-fired 

cogeneration facility. The Permit was 

issued pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21.

DATES: The effective date of the EAB’s 

decision is June 21, 2005. Judicial 

review of this permit decision, to the 

extent it is available pursuant to section 

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’), 

may be sought by filing a petition for 

review in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 60 

days of August 26, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to 

the above action are available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours at the following address: EPA, 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (AWT–

107), Seattle, Washington 98101. To 

arrange viewing of these documents, 

call Dan Meyer at (206) 553–4150.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Meyer, EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue (AWT–107), Seattle, 

Washington 98101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplemental information is organized 

as follows:

A. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

B. What Is the Background Information? 

C. What Did the EAB Decide?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

We are notifying the public of a final 

decision by the EAB on the Permit 

issued by EPA Region 10 and EFSEC 

(‘‘Permitting Authorities’’) pursuant to 

the PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 

52.21. 

B. What Is the Background 

Information? 

The Facility will be a 720-megawatt 

natural gas-fired, combined cycle 

combustion turbine cogeneration facility 

located on a 33-acre parcel of land 

adjacent to BP’s existing Cherry Point 

petroleum refinery in Whatcom County, 

Washington. The Facility will combust 

natural gas and will employ selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) and an 

oxidation catalyst to reduce emissions. 

On November 7, 2003, EFSEC issued 

the draft PSD permit for public review 

and comment. On December 21, 2004, 

after providing an opportunity for 

public comment and a public hearing, 

EFSEC approved the Permit. On January 

11, 2005, EPA approved the Permit. On 

February 4, 2005, Ms. Cathy Cleveland 

(‘‘Petitioner’’) petitioned the EAB for 

review of the Permit. 

What Did the EAB Decide? 

Petitioner, acting pro se, raised the 

following issues on appeal: (1) The 

Permitting Authorities failed to protect 

Peace Arch Park, a Class I area; (2) the 

Permitting Authorities failed to properly 

evaluate particulate matter (‘‘PM’’) 

emissions from the Facility and failed to 

consider the health impacts related to 

PM; (3) the Permitting Authorities failed 

to properly model the ambient air 

quality; (4) the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (‘‘NAAQS’’) 

designation was incorrectly identified in 

the Permit; (5) EPA’s recommended 

nitrogen oxide (‘‘NOx’’) limit was not 

included in the Permit; and (6) the 

Memorandum of Understanding 

(‘‘MOU’’) between BP and the Province 

of British Columbia was missing from 

the Permit attachments. 

The EAB denied review of the 

following three issues because these 

issues were not raised during the public 

comment period on the draft Permit or 

during the public hearing on the draft 

Permit: (1) the Permitting Authorities 

failed to protect Peace Arch Park, a 

Class I area; (2) the Permitting 

Authorities failed to properly model the 

ambient air quality; and (3) the NAAQS 

designation was incorrectly identified in 

the Permit. The EAB further concluded 

that the Permitting Authorities properly 

considered the impacts of emissions of 

particulate matter less than 10 microns 

(‘‘PM10’’) and particulate matter less 

than 2.5 microns (‘‘PM2.5’’). Moreover, 

the EAB found that Petitioner failed to 

demonstrate that the Permitting 

Authorities committed clear error in 

adopting a NOx limit of 2.5 parts per 

million (‘‘ppm’’) rather than 2.0 ppm. 

Last, the EAB concluded that Petitioner 

failed to demonstrate that the Permitting 

Authorities committed clear error by 

failing to include the MOU between BP 

and the Province of British Columbia in 

the administrative record. For these 

reasons, the EAB denied review of the 

petition for review in its entirety. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1), for 

purposes of judicial review, final agency 

action occurs when a final PSD permit 

is issued and agency review procedures 

are exhausted. This notice is being 

published pursuant to 40 CFR 

124.19(f)(2), which requires notice of 

any final agency action regarding a PSD 

permit to be published in the Federal 

Register. This notice constitutes notice 

of the final agency action denying 

review of the PSD Permit and 

consequently, notice of the Permitting 

Authorities’ issuance of PSD Permit No. 

EFSEC/2001–02 to BP. If available, 

judicial review of these determinations 

under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA may 

be sought only by the filing of a petition 

for review in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, within 60 

days from the date on which this notice 

is published in the Federal Register. 

Under section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air 

Act, this determination shall not be 

subject to later judicial review in any 

civil or criminal proceedings for 

enforcement.

Dated: August 1, 2005. 

Ronald A. Kreizenbeck, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 05–17027 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7960–6] 

Notice of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Final Determination for 

Cardinal FG Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Notice of final action.

SUMMARY: This document announces 

that on March 22, 2005, the 

Environmental Appeals Board (‘‘EAB’’) 

of EPA denied review of a petition for 

review of a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (‘‘PSD’’) permit (‘‘Permit’’) 

that the State of Washington’s 

Department of Ecology (‘‘Ecology’’) 

issued to Cardinal FG Company 

(‘‘Cardinal’’) for construction and 

operation of a flat glass production plant 

(‘‘Facility’’) near Chehalis, Washington. 

The Permit was issued pursuant to 40 

CFR 52.21. Ecology has the authority to