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