50506 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices 

expertise of the nominee; the nominee’s 

resume or curriculum vita; sources of 

recent grant and/or contract support; 

and a biographical sketch of the 

nominee indicating current position, 

educational background, research 

activities, and recent service on other 

national advisory committees or 

national professional organizations. The 

bio-sketches and resume or curriculum 

vita of nominees identified by 

respondents to this Federal Register 

notice, and additional experts identified 

by the SAB Staff, will be made available 

to the public upon request. 

Persons having questions about the 

nomination procedures, or who are 

unable to submit nominations through 

the SAB Web site, should contact Mr. 

Edward Hanlon, DFO, as indicated 

above in this notice. Nominations 

should be submitted in time to arrive no 

later than September 11, 2012. EPA 

values and welcomes diversity. In an 

effort to obtain nominations of diverse 

candidates, EPA encourages 

nominations of women and men of all 

racial and ethnic groups. 

The EPA SAB Staff Office will 

acknowledge receipt of nominations. 

The names and bio-sketches of qualified 

nominees identified by respondents to 

this Federal Register notice, and 

additional experts identified by the SAB 

Staff, will be posted in a List of 

Candidates on the SAB Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/sab. Public 

comments on this List of Candidates 

will be accepted for 21 days. The public 

will be requested to provide relevant 

information or other documentation on 

nominees that the SAB Staff Office 

should consider in evaluating 

candidates. 

For the EPA SAB Staff Office a review 

panel includes candidates who possess 

the necessary domains of knowledge, 

the relevant scientific perspectives 

(which, among other factors, can be 

influenced by work history and 

affiliation), and the collective breadth of 

experience to adequately address the 

charge. In forming this expert panel, the 

SAB Staff Office will consider public 

comments on the List of Candidates, 

information provided by the candidates 

themselves, and background 

information independently gathered by 

the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria 

to be used for panel membership 

include: (a) Scientific and/or technical 

expertise, knowledge, and experience 

(primary factors); (b) availability and 

willingness to serve; (c) absence of 

financial conflicts of interest; (d) 

absence of an appearance of a lack of 

impartiality; (e) skills working in 

committees, subcommittees and 

advisory panels; and, (f) for the panel as 

a whole, diversity of expertise and 

viewpoints. 

The SAB Staff Office’s evaluation of 

an absence of financial conflicts of 

interest will include a review of the 

‘‘Confidential Financial Disclosure 

Form for Special Government 

Employees Serving on Federal Advisory 

Committees at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’’ (EPA Form 3110– 

48). This confidential form allows 

government officials to determine 

whether there is a statutory conflict 

between a person’s public 

responsibilities (which includes 

membership on an EPA federal advisory 

committee) and private interests and 

activities, or the appearance of a lack of 

impartiality, as defined by federal 

regulation. The form may be viewed and 

downloaded from the following URL 

address http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ 

epaform3110-48.pdf. 

The approved policy under which the 

EPA SAB Office selects subcommittees 

and review panels is described in the 

following document: Overview of the 

Panel Formation Process at the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Science Advisory Board (EPA–SAB–EC– 

02–010), which is posted on the SAB 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ 

ec02010.pdf. 

Dated: August 10, 2012. 

Thomas Brennan, 

Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board 

Staff Office. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20521 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL 9719–8] 

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’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is 

hereby given of a proposed settlement 

agreement to address lawsuits filed by 

the Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District and the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

(together, ‘‘Petitioners’’) in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit: Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District v. EPA, No. 10–72709 

(9th Cir.) and California Department of 

Parks and Recreation v. EPA, No. 10– 

72729 (9th Cir.). Petitioners filed 

petitions for review challenging EPA’s 

final rule, approving in part and 

disapproving in part, a state 

implementation plan (‘‘SIP’’) 

submission made by the California Air 

Resources Board on behalf of the 

Imperial Valley Air Quality Control 

District. The SIP submission at issue 

included local pollution control 

measures intended to address emissions 

of PM10 from sources located within the 

Imperial Valley Planning Area referred 

to as Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District Rules 800 through 806 

(‘‘Regulation VIII’’). The proposed 

settlement agreement establishes 

deadlines for both the Imperial Valley 

Air Pollution Control District and EPA 

to take specified actions to resolve the 

lawsuits. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed settlement agreements must be 

received by September 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OGC–2012–0644, 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: 

Geoffrey L. Wilcox, Air and Radiation 

Law Office (2344A), Office of General 

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 

564–5601; fax number (202) 564–5603; 

email address: wilcox.geoffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Settlement Agreement 

The California Air Resources Board 

(‘‘CARB’’), on behalf of the Imperial 

Valley Air Polluton Control District (the 

‘‘District’’), made a SIP submission to 

EPA containing Regulation VIII as a SIP 

revision intended to address emissions 

of PM10 from certain sources located 

within the Imperial Valley PM10

nonattainment area. EPA approved this 

submission in part, and disapproved it 

in part, based upon EPA’s evaluation of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices 50507 

the submission itself and evaluation of 

related claims by the District that 

monitor data on certain days should be 

treated as ‘‘exceptional events’’ and thus 

excluded from regulatory 

determinations. 75 FR 39,366 (July 8, 

2010). The District and the California 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

(‘‘Parks’’) challenged EPA’s partial 

disapproval of the submission and 

EPA’s related actions on the claimed 

exceptional events. These challenges 

were filed in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the 

‘‘Court’’) in Imperial County Air 

Pollution Control District v. EPA, No. 

10–72709 (9th Cir.) and California 

Department of Parks and Recreation v. 

EPA, No. 10–72729 (9th Cir.). 

The Court heard oral argument on the 

consolidated challenges on February 15, 

2012. On February 17, 2012, the Court 

issued an Order that referred the case to 

mediation and stayed further 

proceedings on the case pending such 

mediation. Thus, at the suggestion of the 

Court, EPA, the District, and Parks 

engaged in settlement discussions to 

determine whether the legal and factual 

disputes at issue in the litigation could 

be resolved through a settlement 

agreement. This notice describes and 

seeks comment on the proposed 

settlement agreement that the parties 

have negotiated. 

The proposed settlement agreement 

establishes deadlines for both the 

District and EPA to take specified 

actions to resolve the litigation. The 

objective of the parties in the settlement 

agreement is to address the underlying 

legal and factual disputes in a way that 

will be more effective and efficient to 

achieve the overarching goals of meeting 

CAA requirements and improving air 

quality in the Imperial Valley PM10

nonattainment area. Thus, both the 

District and EPA propose to agree to 

take a series of actions by set deadlines 

that will result in a resolution of the 

legal and substantive concerns with 

Regulation VIII that were the basis for 

EPA’s partial disapproval. In particular, 

the District and EPA propose to agree to 

take actions on an expedited schedule 

in order to assure that appropriate 

revisions to Regulation VIII are in place 

in the SIP quickly. 

First, the proposed settlement 

agreement requires that within ninety 

(90) days of execution of the agreement, 

the District must revise Regulation VIII 

and submit it along with supporting 

documentation to the District’s 

Governing Board. These revisions must 

be substantially the same as those set 

forth in Attachment B to the settlement 

agreement. Attachment B reflects 

revisions intended by the parties to 

resolve the legal and substantive 

concerns with Regulation VIII that were 

the basis for EPA’s partial disapproval. 

It is understood that these revisions 

must still meet all local, state, and 

federal administrative process and 

substantive requirements before they are 

deemed to meet applicable requirements 

and could be incorporated into the SIP 

for the Imperial Valley PM10

nonattainment area. 

Second, the proposed settlement 

agreement requires that within fourteen 

(14) days of the Governing Board’s 

adoption of the revised Regulation VIII 

rules, the District must submit the 

revised Regulation VIII rules to CARB 

for expedited submittal to EPA for 

incorporation into the California SIP. 

Third, the proposed settlement 

agreement requires that within sixty (60) 

days of submittal by CARB, EPA must 

sign for publication in the Federal 

Register a notice of proposed 

rulemaking that proposes taking action 

on the submission pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k). If the 

revised Regulation VIII is substantially 

the same in substance as set forth in 

Attachment B, the notice to be signed by 

EPA must propose full approval of the 

submission pursuant to CAA sections 

110(k) and 189(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 

7410(k), 7513a(b)(1)(B). 

Fourth, if EPA proposes full approval, 

then within the notice of proposed 

rulemaking EPA must make a statement 

that EPA’s preliminary view is that the 

revised Regulation VIII will constitute 

‘‘reasonable control’’ of the sources 

covered by Regulation VIII for the 

purpose of evaluating whether an 

exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS is an 

‘‘exceptional event’’ including 

reasonable and appropriate control 

measures on significant contributing 

anthropogenic sources. This statement 

will not extend to exceedances of 

NAAQS other than the PM10 NAAQS, or 

to events that differ significantly in 

terms of meteorology, sources, or 

conditions from the events that were at 

issue in the litigation. 

Fifth, if EPA proposes full approval of 

the revised Regulation VIII, EPA must 

also sign for publication in the Federal 

Register a notice making an interim 

final determination to defer imposition 

of sanctions pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1) pending public comments on 

the proposed action. 

Sixth, within sixty (60) days of the 

close of public comment on the 

proposed action, EPA must sign for 

publication in the Federal Register a 

notice of final rulemaking that takes 

final action on the submission 

containing the revised Regulation VIII 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k), 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k). Thereafter, EPA must 

promptly deliver the notice of final 

rulemaking to the Office of Federal 

Register for review and publication. 

The proposed settlement agreement 

also contains various provisions that 

will govern what may happen if either 

the District or EPA fails to meet the 

terms of the agreement. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, EPA 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 these 

comments disclose facts or 

considerations that indicate that such 

consent is inappropriate, improper, 

inadequate, or inconsistent with the 

requirements of the CAA. Unless EPA or 

the Department of Justice determines 

that consent to this settlement 

agreement should be withdrawn, the 

terms of the agreement will be affirmed. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed 

Settlement Agreement 

A. 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–XXXX) 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 on paper, 

will be made available for public 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50508 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices 

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. 

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 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. 

Dated: August 14, 2012. 

Lorie J. Schmidt, 

Associate General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20518 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and 

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; 

Correction 

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 

2012–19772) published on page 48156 

of the issue for Monday, August 13, 

2012. 

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of 

Minneapolis heading, the entry for 

MVC, Petroleum Inc., and William 

Coleman, both of Denver, Colorado; 

Eugene Nicholas, Cando, North Dakota; 

Timothy Dodd and Bradley Fey, both of 

Bismarck, North Dakota; Jeffrey Topp, 

Grace City, North Dakota; Janet Topp, 

Grace City, North Dakota; and Roger 

Kenner, Leeds, North Dakota; as a group 

acting in concert, is revised to read as 

follows: 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of 

Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 

Community Affairs Officer) 90 

Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota 55480–0291: 

1. MVC; Prairie Petroleum Inc., and 

William Coleman, both of Denver, 

Colorado; Eugene Nicholas, Cando, 

North Dakota; Timothy Dodd, Ottertail, 

Minnesota; and Bradley Fay, Bismarck, 

North Dakota; Jeffrey Topp, Grace City, 

North Dakota; Janet Topp, Grace City, 

North Dakota; and Roger Kenner, Leeds, 

North Dakota; as a group acting in 

concert, to collectively acquire voting 

shares of BNCCORP, Inc., Bismarck, 

North Dakota, and thereby indirectly 

acquire voting shares of BNC National 

Bank, Glendale, Arizona. 

Comments on this application must 

be received by August 28, 2012. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, August 16, 2012. 

Margaret McCloskey Shanks, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20453 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 122 3073] 

Brain-Pad, Inc; Analysis of Proposed 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices or unfair 

methods of competition. The attached 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes both the allegations in the 

draft complaint and the terms of the 

consent order—embodied in the consent 

agreement—that would settle these 

allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘Brain-Pad, File No. 122 

3073’’ on your comment, and file your 

comment online at https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

brainpadconsent, by following the 

instructions on the Web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail or deliver your comment to 

the following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–113 (Annex D), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Victor DeFrancis (202–326–3495), FTC, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission 

Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of thirty (30) days. The following 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes the terms of the consent 

agreement, and the allegations in the 

complaint. An electronic copy of the 

full text of the consent agreement 

package can be obtained from the FTC 

Home Page (for August 16, 2012), on the 

World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/ 

os/actions.shtm. A paper copy can be 

obtained from the FTC Public Reference 

Room, Room 130–H, 600 Pennsylvania 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES