51798 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Notices 

13See, e.g., Northwest Industrial Gas Users March 

30, 2012 Comments at 3; Northwest Gas 

Association, et al. March 29, 2012 Comments at 1. 

above, almost all commenters from the 

West indicated they expect an increased 

reliance on natural gas generation in the 

coming years, due to economic and 

national policy factors. Commenters 

also expressed concerns about the future 

reliability and interdependencies of the 

bulk electric system and the interstate 

natural gas pipeline system as the 

amount of natural gas-fired generation 

increases. 

Roundtable participants are 

encouraged to be prepared to discuss 

the following: 

1. Is there a need for a minimum level 

of dependability in the fuel supply for 

gas-fired generators? How would it be 

defined, who would define it, and what 

would be the mechanism for 

accomplishing this? To what extent is 

the dependability of fuel supply a 

required specification in standardized 

contract documents for buying and 

selling electricity? Should this be 

addressed regionally, and how can it be 

addressed in the regions without 

organized markets? What role can or do 

State Commissions play in defining or 

otherwise supporting requirements for 

fuel dependability in all of the Western 

subregions? 

2. Several commenters express 

concern about whether there are 

particular reliability concerns in areas 

that lack underground natural gas 

storage. What tools are available to 

regions to manage gas-fired generation 

swings and preserve reliability, in areas 

without gas storage? What happens 

when there are events that impact 

pipeline deliverability in those regions? 

3. To what extent do the regions in 

the West coordinate studies of the 

natural gas and electric systems to 

analyze forecasted resource mix and/or 

interdependency risks from 

curtailments or contingencies? Can this 

be addressed through existing 

transmission planning processes or are 

different processes needed? 

4. Commenters from California and 

the Northwest highlighted ongoing 

coordination efforts that allowed 

participants from the natural gas and 

electric industries, as well as state 

regulators, to assess emergency response 

plans and provided a forum to discuss 

and implement improvements.13 Are 

sufficient emergency coordination 

procedures in place in the West? Are 

these procedures routinely tested 

through functional exercises or 

simulations? Should all regions within 

the West routinely conduct joint 

functional exercises? 

4:30–5:30 General Discussion of Other 

Region-Specific Issues Affecting 

Gas-Electric Coordination 

Electric markets in the West function 

differently in California, the Pacific 

Northwest and in the rest of the Western 

Interconnect. To the extent not 

discussed in the earlier roundtable 

discussions, we’ll discuss these 

differences as well as any specific issues 

of concern to one or more of these subregions not touched on earlier. 

Roundtable Participants: 

➢ Richard Adams, Executive Director, 

Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference 

Committee 

➢ Ed Brewer, Vice President, 

Commercial Operations, Williams— 

Northwest Pipeline 

➢ Will Brown, Director-Commercial, 

Kinder Morgan West Region Pipelines 

➢ Tina Burnett, Senior Energy Analyst, 

The Boeing Corporation (on behalf of 

Process Gas Consumers Group) 

➢ Stefan Byrd, Senior Vice President 

Commercial and Trading (on behalf of 

MidAmerican Energy Holdings 

Company) (representing the common 

views of Pacific Corp Energy and Kern 

River Gas Transmission) 

➢ Jan Caldwell, Manager, Marketing 

Services, Williams—Northwest 

Pipeline 

➢ Shelley Corman, Senior Vice 

President, Commercial & Regulatory, 

Transwestern Pipeline Company 

➢ John Dagg, Director of Gas 

Transmission and System Operations, 

Southern California Gas Company and 

San Diego Gas & Electric 

➢ Lynn Dahlberg, Director Marketing 

Services, Williams—Northwest 

Pipeline 

➢ Curtis Dallinger, Director, Gas 

Resource Planning, Xcel Energy 

➢ Randy Friedman, Director, Gas 

Supply, Northwest Natural Gas 

➢ Paul Goldstein, Managing Director, 

Sempra U.S. Gas & Power 

➢ Roger Graham, Director Wholesale 

Marketing & Business Development, 

Pacific Gas & Electric 

➢ Steve Harper, Director Gas Supply, 

Avista Corp. 

➢ Robert Hayes, Vice President of 

Physical Trading and Operations, 

Calpine Corporation 

➢ Tom Haymaker, Slice Manager, Clark 

Public Utilities 

➢ Lee Hobbs, Senior Vice President, 

TransCanada US Pipelines 

➢ Skip Horvath, President, Natural Gas 

Supply Association 

➢ Kevin Johnson, Director, Gas Control, 

Kinder Morgan Western Pipelines 

➢ Dan Kirschner, Executive Director, 

Northwest Gas Association 

➢ Ray Miller, Vice President, Pipeline 

Management, Kinder Morgan 

Pipelines 

➢ John Moura, Associate Director, 

Reliability Assessment, NERC 

➢ Liam Noailles, Manager, Market 

Operations, Xcel Energy 

➢ Kent Price, Senior Marketing 

Representative, Salt River Project 

➢ Pete Richards, Director, Operations, 

Gas Control & Measurement, 

Williams—Northwest Pipeline 

➢ Clay Riding, Director Natural Gas 

Resources, Puget Sound Energy 

➢ Andrew Soto, Senior Managing 

Counsel, American Gas Association 

➢ Reuben Tavares, Electric Generation 

System Specialist, California Energy 

Commission 

➢ Justin Thompson, Director of 

Business Support, Arizona Public 

Service Company 

➢ William Tom, Senior Manager, DayAhead Operations, Pacific Gas & 

Electric 

➢ Gregory Van Pelt, External Affairs 

Manager, California ISO 

➢ Craig Williams, Market Interface 

Manager, Western Electricity 

Coordinating Council 

[FR Doc. 2012–20904 Filed 8–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0699; FRL–9721–6] 

First Draft Documents Related to the 

Review of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing an 

extension of the public comment period 

for the first draft assessment documents 

titled, Health Risk and Exposure 

Assessment for Ozone, First External 

Review Draft; Welfare Risk and 

Exposure Assessment for Ozone, First 

External Review Draft; and Policy 

Assessment for the Review of the Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards: First External Review Draft. 

The Agency is extending the comment 

period by 31 days to provide 

stakeholders and the public adequate 

time to conduct appropriate analysis 

and prepare meaningful comments on 

these first draft assessment documents. 

The original comment period was to end 

on September 11, 2012. The extended 

comment period will now close on 

October 12, 2012. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Notices 51799 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

on or before October 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0699, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (email) to a-and-rdocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0699. 

• Fax: Fax your comments to 202– 

566–9744, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0699. 

• Mail: Send your comments to: Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0699. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: EPA Docket Center, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 

3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0699. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

Docket telephone number is 202–566– 

1742; fax 202–566–9744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions related to the draft document 

titled, Health Risk and Exposure 

Assessment for Ozone, First External 

Review Draft (EPA–452/P–12–001; July 

2012), please contact Ms. Karen Wesson, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (Mail code C504–02), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

email: wesson.karen@epa.gov; 

telephone: 919–541–3515; fax: 919– 

541–5315. 

For questions related to the draft 

document titled, Welfare Risk and 

Exposure Assessment for Ozone, First 

External Review Draft (EPA–452/P–12– 

004; July 2012), please contact Dr. 

Travis Smith, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (Mail code 

C539–07), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; email: 

smith.jtravis@epa.gov; telephone: 919– 

541–2035; fax: 919–541–5315. 

For questions related to the draft 

document titled, Policy Assessment for 

the Review of the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards: First 

External Review Draft (EPA–452/P–12– 

002; August 2012), please contact Ms. 

Susan Lyon Stone, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (Mail code 

C504–06), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; email: 

stone.susan@epa.gov; telephone: 919– 

541–1146; fax: 919–541–0237. 

General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), the Administrator identifies and 

lists certain pollutants which ‘‘cause or 

contribute to air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare.’’ The EPA then 

issues air quality criteria for these listed 

pollutants, which are commonly 

referred to as ‘‘criteria pollutants.’’ The 

air quality criteria are to ‘‘accurately 

reflect the latest scientific knowledge 

useful in indicating the kind and extent 

of all identifiable effects on public 

health or welfare which may be 

expected from the presence of [a] 

pollutant in the ambient air, in varying 

quantities.’’ Under section 109 of the 

CAA, EPA establishes primary (healthbased) and secondary (welfare-based) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for pollutants for which air 

quality criteria are issued. Section 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51800 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Notices 

1See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/review.html 

for more information on the NAAQS review 

process. 

2See http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

WebProjectsbyTopicCASAC!OpenView for more 

information on CASAC activities related to the 

current O3 NAAQS review. 

3See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/review.html 

for more information on the NAAQS review 

process. 

4EPA–452/P–11–001 and –002; April 2011; 

Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ 

standards/ozone/s_o3_2008_pd.html 

5U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment of 

Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Third 

External Review Draft). U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R– 

10/076C, 2012; Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=242490#Download. 

109(d) of the CAA requires periodic 

review and, if appropriate, revision of 

existing air quality criteria. The revised 

air quality criteria reflect advances in 

scientific knowledge on the effects of 

the pollutant on public health or 

welfare. The EPA is also required to 

periodically review and revise the 

NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the 

revised criteria.1 A draft of the 

integrated review plan was released for 

public review and comment in 

September 2009 and was the subject of 

a consultation with the Clean Air 

Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) 

on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 54562; 

October 22, 2009).2 Comments received 

from that consultation and from the 

public were considered in finalizing the 

plan and in beginning the review of the 

air quality criteria. 

As part of EPA’s review of the 

primary and secondary ozone (O3) 

NAAQS,3 the Agency is conducting 

quantitative assessments characterizing 

the health and welfare risks associated 

with exposure to ambient O3. The EPA’s 

plans for conducting these assessments, 

including the proposed scope and 

methods of the analyses, were presented 

in two planning documents titled, 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for 

Health Risk and Exposure Assessment 

and Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards: Scope and Methods 

Plan for Welfare Risk and Exposure 

Assessment (henceforth, Scope and 

Methods Plans).4 These documents were 

released for public comment in April 

2011, and were the subject of a 

consultation with the CASAC on May 

19–20, 2011 (76 FR 23809; April 28, 

2011). In May 2012, a memo titled, 

Updates to information presented in the 

Scope and Methods Plans for the Ozone 

NAAQS Health and Welfare Risk and 

Exposure Assessments, was made 

available that described changes to 

elements of the scope and methods 

plans and provided a brief explanation 

of each change and the reason for it. 

On July 16, 2012 EPA made available 

the first draft documents Health Risk 

and Exposure Assessment for Ozone, 

First External Review Draft and Welfare 

Risk and Exposure Assessment for 

Ozone, First External Review Draft. At 

that time, we noted that Chapter 6 of the 

Health Risk and Exposure Assessment 

(REA) and quantitative results of 

ecosystem services modeling in Chapter 

6 of the Welfare REA would be made 

available in a separate submission in 

August, 2012. 

On August 15, EPA made available 

updates to the first draft Health and 

Welfare REAs, along with several 

technical memos and appendices. 

Updates to the Health REA include 

Chapter 6 which describes risk analyses 

based on application of results from 

human clinical studies, an updated 

Chapter 9 which incorporates the 

findings from Chapter 6, and several 

corrections to other chapters, including 

corrected table numbers in Chapter 5, 

and corrected references in several 

locations. Updates to the Welfare REA 

include additional analyses described in 

Chapter 6 which provide estimates of 

damages from O3 exposure to ecosystem 

services related to commercial forests 

and urban trees, additional discussions 

in Chapter 7 related to the ecosystem 

service analyses in the revised Chapter 

6, as well as corrections to maps in 

Chapter 4 and corrected references in 

several locations. 

In addition, on August 15, 2012 EPA 

made available the first draft document 

titled Policy Assessment for the Review 

of the Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards: First External 

Review Draft. When final, the Policy 

Assessment will serve to ‘‘bridge the 

gap’’ between the scientific information 

and the judgments required of the 

Administrator in determining whether it 

is appropriate to retain or revise the 

standards. The first draft Policy 

Assessment builds upon information 

presented in the Integrated Science 

Assessment of Ozone and Related 

Photochemical Oxidants (Third draft) 5

and the two draft Risk and Exposure 

Assessment documents described above. 

The first draft Policy Assessment may 

be accessed online through EPA’s TTN 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

naaqs/standards/ozone/ 

s_o3_index.html. 

The EPA is soliciting advice and 

recommendations from the CASAC by 

means of a review of these draft 

documents at an upcoming public 

meeting of the CASAC that will be held 

September 11–13, 2012. Information 

about these public meetings, including 

the dates and locations, was published 

in a separate notice in the Federal 

Register (77 FR 46755). The EPA is also 

soliciting comments from the public on 

these draft documents. Following the 

CASAC meeting and the close of the 

public comment period, EPA will 

consider comments received from the 

CASAC and the public in preparing 

revisions to these documents. 

The draft documents briefly described 

above do not represent and should not 

be construed to represent any final EPA 

policy, viewpoint, or determination. 

The EPA will consider any public 

comments submitted in response to this 

notice when revising the documents. 

Dated: August 20, 2012. 

Mary Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21034 Filed 8–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Notice to All Interested Parties of the 

Termination of the Receivership of 

10339, Badger State Bank, Cassville, 

WI 

Notice is hereby given that the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’) 

as Receiver for Badger State Bank, 

Cassville, Wisconsin (‘‘the Receiver’’) 

intends to terminate its receivership for 

said institution. The FDIC was 

appointed receiver of Badger State Bank. 

The liquidation of the receivership 

assets has been completed. To the extent 

permitted by available funds and in 

accordance with law, the Receiver will 

be making a final dividend payment to 

proven creditors. 

Based upon the foregoing, the 

Receiver has determined that the 

continued existence of the receivership 

will serve no useful purpose. 

Consequently, notice is given that the 

receivership shall be terminated, to be 

effective no sooner than thirty days after 

the date of this Notice. If any person 

wishes to comment concerning the 

termination of the receivership, such 

comment must be made in writing and 

sent within thirty days of the date of 

this Notice to: Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation, Division of 

Resolutions and Receiverships, 

Attention: Receivership Oversight 

Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, 

Dallas, TX 75201. 

No comments concerning the 

termination of this receivership will be 

considered which are not sent within 

this time frame. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES