Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices 50325

issue PSD permits pursuant to the 

‘‘Agreement for Partial Delegation of the 

Federal Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Program by the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 10 to the State of 

Washington Department of Ecology,’’

dated March 28, 2003 (‘‘PSD Delegation 

Agreement’’). The PSD Delegation 

Agreement was entered into pursuant to 

40 CFR 52.21(u).

DATES: The effective date of the EAB’s 

decision is March 22, 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 Ecology pursuant to the PSD 

regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21. 

B. What Is the Background 

Information? 

The Facility will be a 650 ton-per-day 

flat-glass production plant located 

approximately five miles south of 

Chehalis, Washington. The Facility will 

employ the ‘‘3R Process’’ to limit carbon 

monoxide (‘‘CO’’) and nitrogen oxides 

(‘‘NOX’’) emissions from its natural gasfired glass furnace. 

On July 23, 2004, Ecology issued the 

draft Permit for public review and 

comment. On October 6, 2004, after 

providing an opportunity for public 

comment and holding a public hearing, 

Ecology issued the final Permit to 

Cardinal. On November 5, 2004, the 

Olympia and Vicinity Building and 

Construction Trades Council 

(‘‘Petitioner’’) petitioned the EAB for 

review of the Permit.

C. What Did the EAB Decide? 

Petitioner raised the following issues 

on appeal: (1) Ecology improperly 

rejected ‘‘oxy-fuel technology’’ as 

technically infeasible to control CO and 

NOX emissions from the Facility’s glass 

furnace, (2) Ecology failed to conduct a 

cost-effective analysis of oxy-fuel for 

limiting NOX and CO emissions, (3) 

Ecology’s best available control 

technology (‘‘BACT’’) emission limits 

for the Facility’s glass furnace should be 

more stringent, and (4) Ecology failed to 

conduct a BACT analysis for the 

Facility’s ‘‘trackmobile.’’

The EAB concluded that Petitioner 

failed to demonstrate that Ecology 

committed clear error in eliminating 

oxy-fuel as BACT due to concerns 

regarding its technical feasibility. 

Moreover, the EAB found that Ecology’s 

determination regarding the issue of 

technical feasibility was sufficient to 

eliminate oxy-fuel as BACT without 

conducting a full cost effectiveness 

analysis. The EAB further concluded 

that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate 

that Ecology committed clear error in 

adopting NOX and CO emission limits, 

rather than the lower limits suggesting 

by the Petitioner. Last, the EAB 

concluded that Ecology correctly 

determined that the trackmobile is not 

subject to PSD review because the 

trackmobile does not fall within the 

statutory definition of ‘‘stationary 

source’’ under CAA section 302(z), 42 

U.S.C. 7602(z). 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 Ecology’s 

issuance of PSD Permit No. PSD–03–03 

to Cardinal. 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 CAA, this 

determination shall not be subject to 

later judicial review in any civil or 

criminal proceedings for enforcement.

Dated: August 11, 2005. 

Ronald A. Kreizenbeck, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 05–17028 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7960–7] 

Notice of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Final Determination for 

Sumas Energy 2 Electric Generating 

Facility

AGENCY: United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

SUMMARY: This document announces 

that on May 26, 2005, the 

Environmental Appeals Board (‘‘EAB’’) 

of EPA denied review of a petition for 

review of a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (‘‘PSD’’) permit 

amendment (‘‘Permit Amendment’’) that 

EPA, Region 10 and the State of 

Washington’s Energy Facility Site 

Evaluation Council (‘‘EFSEC’’) issued to 

Sumas Energy 2, Inc. (‘‘SE2’’). The 

Permit Amendment extends the original 

PSD permit (‘‘Original Permit’’) issued 

to SE2 for construction and operation of 

the SE2 electric generating facility 

(‘‘Facility’’). The Permit Amendment 

was issued pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21.

DATES: The effective date of the EAB’s 

decision is May 26, 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 Pat Nair at (208) 378–5754.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat 

Nair, EPA Region 10, Idaho Operations 

Office, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

1435 North Orchard Street, Boise, ID 

83706.

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?

50326 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices 

A. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

We are notifying the public of a final 

decision by the EAB on the Permit 

Amendment issued by EPA Region 10 

and EFSEC (‘‘Permitting Authorities’’) 

pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21. 

B. What Is the Background 

Information? 

The Facility will be a 660-megawatt 

natural gas-fired combined cycle electric 

generation facility located in Sumas, 

Washington, about one-half mile south 

of the Canadian border. The Facility 

will combust only natural gas and will 

employ selective catalytic reduction 

(‘‘SCR’’) and catalytic oxidation 

technology. 

Both the Province of British Columbia 

(‘‘Province’’) and Environment Canada, 

Canada’s national environmental 

protection agency, filed petitions for 

review challenging the issuance of the 

Original Permit. On September 6, 2002, 

the Permitting Authorities jointly issued 

the Original Permit to SE2 pursuant to 

section 165 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7475, 

40 CFR 52.21, and the terms and 

conditions of EFSEC’s delegation of 

authority from EPA Region 10 under 40 

CFR 52.21(u). 

On March 25, 2003, the EAB issued 

an order that denied the petitions for 

review in part and remanded in part to 

correct a typographical error that was 

inadvertently retained from the draft 

permit. The Original Permit 

subsequently became effective on April 

17, 2003 and remained in effect until 

October 17, 2004.

On June 1, 2004, SE2 applied to the 

EFSEC for an extension of the Original 

Permit. On January 11, 2005, after 

providing an opportunity for public 

comments and holding a public hearing, 

EFSEC approved the Permit 

Amendment. On January 21, 2005, EPA 

approved the Permit Amendment. The 

Permit Amendment authorizes an 18-

month extension of the Original Permit. 

Subsequent to issuance of the Permit 

Amendment, the Province petitioned 

the EAB for review of the Permit 

Amendment. 

C. What Did the EAB Decide? 

The Province raised five main issues 

in its petition for review: (1) SE2’s 

application for permit extension was 

untimely; (2) SE2’s application lacked 

the required construction schedule; (3) 

the best available control technology 

(‘‘BACT’’) re-analysis for startup and 

shutdown emissions was incomplete; 

(4) the BACT analysis for nitrogen oxide 

(‘‘NOX’’) emissions was inadequate; and 

(5) the Permit Amendment should not 

have been granted for an 18-month 

period. 

The EAB denied review of the 

Province’s petition for review in its 

entirety. First, the EAB concluded that 

the Permitting Authorities did not err in 

concluding that SE2’s permit extension 

application was filed in a timely 

manner. Specifically, the EAB found 

that SE2 was not required to submit the 

permit extension application six months 

before expiration of the Original Permit. 

Second, the EAB found that the 

Province failed to demonstrate that the 

Permitting Authorities clearly erred in 

determining that SE2 provided a 

construction schedule in its application. 

Third, the EAB determined that the 

Permitting Authorities conducted a 

complete BACT re-analysis for startup 

and shutdown emissions by reviewing 

the Original Permit BACT analysis for 

these emissions and concluding that 

there was no new information that 

would warrant any changes to the 

analysis. Moreover, the EAB concluded 

that the Province failed to demonstrate 

why the Permitting Authorities’ BACT 

analysis for NOX emissions was in error. 

Finally, the EAB found that the 

Permitting Authorities had discretion to 

grant an 18-month extension of the 

Original Permit and the Provice failed to 

show why the Permitting Authorities’

decision to grant an 18-month extension 

was in clear error. For these reasons, the 

EAB denied the Province’s petition for 

review of the Permit Amendment 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 

decision 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 Permit Amendment and 

consequently, notice of the Permitting 

Authorities’ issuance of PSD Permit No. 

EFSEC/2001–02 Amendment 1 to SE2. If 

available, judicial review of these 

determinations under section 307(b)(1) 

of the CAA may be sought by 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. 05–17029 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7960–3] 

Calculation of the Economic Benefit of 

Noncompliance in EPA’s Civil Penalty 

Enforcement Cases

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action and 

response to comment. 

SUMMARY: In a Federal Register notice 

issued on October 9, 1996, the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) requested comment on how it 

calculates the economic benefit that 

regulated entities obtain as a result of 

violating environmental requirements. 

EPA makes this calculation as a part of 

establishing an appropriate penalty for 

settlement purposes. The Agency’s 

policy is that any civil penalty should 

at least recapture the economic benefit 

the violator has obtained through its 

unlawful actions. Because enforcement 

staff typically use the BEN (short for 

benefit) computer model to perform the 

economic benefit calculations, the 

Agency requested comments on the BEN 

model as well as the larger benefit 

recapture issues. In a subsequent 

Federal Register notice issued on June 

18, 1999, EPA responded to the 

comments on the October 1996 Federal 

Register notice; provided advance 

notice of the changes EPA proposed to 

make to its benefit recapture approach 

and the BEN computer model; and 

requested a second round of comment of 

those proposed changes. This notice 

responds to the comments on the June 

1999 notice and contains the changes 

EPA will implement in its benefit 

recapture program.

ADDRESSES: The Agency has dedicated a 

page of its website to the computers 

models the enforcement program uses to 

addresses benefit recapture as well as 

ability to pay claims and the evaluation 

of the costs of supplemental 

environmental projects (SEP’s). The web 

address for those models is: 

www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/

econmodels/index.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, contact Jonathan 

Libber, Office of Civil Enforcement, 

Special Litigation and Projects Division, 

at (202) 564–6102, or through electronic