67814 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2012 / Notices 

Discussion 

Following Department of Energy 

guidelines, Southwestern prepared a 

2012 Current Power Repayment Study 

using the existing Sam Rayburn Dam 

Project rate schedule. The study shows 

the cumulative amortization through FY 

2011 at $24,993,504 on a total 

investment of $30,254,778. The FY 2012 

Revised Power Repayment Study 

indicates the need for an increase in 

annual revenues of $193,896, or 4.9 

percent, to meet repayment criteria. 

Southwestern deferred the indicated 

rate adjustment because it fell within 

Southwestern’s plus-or-minus five 

percent isolated project rate adjustment 

threshold and proposed extending the 

current rate through September 30, 

2013. The threshold was developed to 

add efficiency to the process of 

maintaining adequate rates and is 

consistent with cost recovery criteria 

within DOE Order Number RA 6120.2 

regarding rate adjustment plans. The 

extension is required because the 

current rate expires September 30, 2012. 

Southwestern will reevaluate the ability 

of the existing rate to provide sufficient 

revenues to satisfy costs projected in the 

FY 2013 Power Repayment Studies. 

Title 10, Part 903, Subpart A of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, 

‘‘Procedures for Public Participation in 

Power and Transmission Rate 

Adjustments and Extensions,’’ has been 

followed in connection with the rate 

extension. Opportunities for public 

review and comment during a 30-day 

period on the proposed Rayburn power 

rate extension were announced by a 

Federal Register (77 FR 50493) notice 

published on August 21, 2012. Written 

comments were accepted through 

September 20, 2012. Southwestern 

provided the Federal Register notice to 

the customer and interested parties for 

review and comment during the formal 

period of public participation. In 

addition, prior to the formal 30-day 

public participation process, 

Southwestern discussed with the 

customer representatives the proposed 

rate extension. Only one formal 

comment was received from Gillis & 

Angley, LLP, Counsellors at Law, on 

behalf of Sam Rayburn Dam Electric 

Cooperative, Inc., which stated that they 

had no objection to the proposed rate 

extension. 

Upon conclusion of the comment 

period in September 2012, 

Southwestern finalized the rate 

schedule extension for the annual rate 

of $3,949,872 to be extended for one 

year through September 30, 2013. This 

rate extension will allow the FY 2013 

Power Repayment Studies to evaluate 

the ability of the existing rate to provide 

sufficient revenues to accomplish 

repayment in the required number of 

years. 

Comments and Responses 

Southwestern received one comment 

during the public comment period. The 

comment, on behalf of Sam Rayburn 

Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc., 

expressed no objection to the rate 

extension through September 30, 2013. 

Order 

In view of the foregoing and pursuant 

to the authority to extend rates, 

previously confirmed and approved by 

FERC, on an interim basis, of Title 10, 

Part 903, Subpart A of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 903), 

Sections 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3), I 

hereby extend on an interim basis, for 

the period of one year, effective October 

1, 2012 through September 30, 2013,the 

current FERC approved Sam Rayburn 

Dam Project Rate for the sale of power 

and energy. 

Dated: November 7, 2012. 

Daniel B. Poneman, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27674 Filed 11–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9751–7] 

Proposed Settlement Agreement, 

Clean Air Act Citizen Suit 

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 

(‘‘CAA’’ or the ‘‘Act’’), notice is hereby 

given of a proposed settlement to 

address a lawsuit filed by Public Service 

Company of Oklahoma (‘‘Plaintiff’’) in 

the United States Appeals Court for the 

Tenth Circuit: Public Service Company 

of Oklahoma v. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, et al., No. 12–9524. 

On February 24, 2011, Plaintiff timely 

filed a Petition for Review, challenging 

the issuance of EPA’s final rule entitled, 

‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; 

Federal Implementation Plan for 

Interstate Transport of Pollution 

Affecting Visibility and Best Available 

Retrofit Technology Determinations,’’ 76 

FR 81,728 (Dec. 28, 2011) (the ‘‘Final 

Rule’’). The Final Rule partially 

approved and partially disapproved 

Oklahoma’s state implementation plan 

(‘‘SIP’’) submitted under the ‘‘visibility’’ 

and ‘‘interstate transport’’ provisions of 

the Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’). The Final 

Rule included a federal implementation 

plan (‘‘FIP’’) establishing Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (‘‘BART’’) emission 

limitations on sulfur dioxide (‘‘SO2’’) for 

Units 3 and 4 of Plaintiff’s Northeastern 

plant (‘‘Plaintiff’s Units’’) to address the 

visibility and interstate transport 

provisions of the CAA. On March 26, 

2012, Sierra Club (‘‘Intervenor’’) filed a 

timely motion to intervene. The motion 

was granted March 27, 2012. The 

proposed settlement agreement 

establishes a deadline for EPA to take 

action on a SIP to be drafted and 

submitted by Oklahoma addressing 

Plaintiff’s Units. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed settlement agreement must be 

received by December 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OGC–2012–0826, online at 

www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred 

method); by email to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; by mail 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 3334, 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 Word 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: Lea 

Anderson, Air and Radiation Law Office 

(2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564–5571; 

fax number (202) 564–5603; email 

address: anderson.lea@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Settlement Agreement 

The proposed settlement agreement 

would resolve a lawsuit challenging the 

issuance of EPA’s final rule partially 

approving and partially disapproving 

Oklahoma’s SIP submitted under the 

‘‘visibility’’ and ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

provisions of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, 

7491, and 7492. The Final Rule 

included a FIP establishing BART 

emission limitations on SO2 for Units 3 

and 4 of Plaintiff’s Northeastern plant to 

address the visibility and interstate 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2012 / Notices 67815 

transport provisions of the CAA. 

Specifically, the proposed settlement 

agreement outlines the timeframe in 

which Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality (‘‘ODEQ’’) 

develops and the Oklahoma Secretary of 

Environment submits to EPA for review 

SIP revisions containing specific 

elements as spelled out in Attachment 

A of the settlement agreement to address 

the ‘‘visibility’’ and ‘‘interstate 

transport’’ provisions of the CAA, 42 

U.S.C. § 7410, 7491, and 7492. In turn, 

the proposed settlement agreement 

establishes a deadline for EPA to take 

final action on Oklahoma’s visibility 

and interstate transport SIP revisions 

addressing Plaintiff’s units within six 

months from the date of EPA’s 

determination that the revisions meet 

the requirements of the CAA consistent 

with 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(B). Because 

this Agreement requires ODEQ to 

develop and propose SIP revisions and 

the Oklahoma Secretary of Environment 

(‘‘Secretary’’) to submit these SIP 

revisions to EPA under the visibility 

and interstate transport provisions of 

the CAA, and because ODEQ and the 

Secretary prefer to regulate Plaintiff 

under such SIP revisions rather than 

EPA’s FIP, ODEQ and the Secretary are 

parties to the settlement agreement as 

are the Plaintiff and the Intervenor. 

After EPA fulfills its obligations under 

the proposed settlement agreement, 

Plaintiff, Intervenor, and EPA will file a 

joint stipulation of dismissal of 

Plaintiff’s Petition for Review. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, the Agency will accept written 

comments relating to the proposed 

settlement agreement from persons who 

were not named as parties or 

intervenors 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 determines 

that consent to this settlement 

agreement should be withdrawn, the 

terms of the proposed settlement 

agreement will be affirmed. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed 

Settlement Agreement 

How can I get a copy of the settlement 

agreement? 

The official public docket for this 

action (identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OGC–2012–0826) contains a 

copy of the proposed 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 3334, 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 

www.regulations.gov. You may use 

www.regulations.gov 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, key in the appropriate docket 

identification number then select 

‘‘search’’. 

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 online at www.regulations.gov 

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 the 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. 

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 email 

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. 

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web 

site 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, email 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 (email) 

system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system. If you send an email comment 

directly to the Docket without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email 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. 

Lorie J. Schmidt, 

Associate General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27704 Filed 11–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Federal Advisory Committee Act; 

Communications Security, Reliability, 

and Interoperability Council 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, this 

notice advises interested persons that 

the Federal Communications 

Commission’s (FCC) Communications 

Security, Reliability, and 

Interoperability Council (CSRIC) will 

hold its sixth meeting. The Next 

Generation Alerting Working Group, 

DNSSEC Implementation Practices for 

ISPs Working Group, Secure BGP 

Deployment Working Group, and E 9–1– 

1 Best Practices Working Group will be 

presenting reports for a vote by the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES