Record of Decision, 3034-3035 [05-999]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3034
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2005 / Notices
Dated: January 10, 2005.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 05–1031 Filed 1–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting
Tuesday, January 25,
2005, at 10 a.m.
DATE AND TIME:
PLACE:
999 E Street, NW., Washington,
DC.
This meeting will be closed to
the public.
STATUS:
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
Compliance matters pursuant to 2
U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2
U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in
civil actions or proceedings or
arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and
procedures or matters affecting a
particular employee.
*
*
*
*
*
Thursday, January 27,
2005, at 10 a.m.
DATE AND TIME:
999 E Street, NW., Washington,
DC (ninth floor).
PLACE:
STATUS:
public.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Change in Bank Control Notices;
Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank
Holding Companies
The notificants listed below have
applied under the Change in Bank
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and
§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12
CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank
holding company. The factors that are
considered in acting on the notices are
set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12
U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for
immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices
also will be available for inspection at
the office of the Board of Governors.
Interested persons may express their
views in writing to the Reserve Bank
indicated for that notice or to the offices
of the Board of Governors. Comments
must be received not later than February
1, 2005.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
(W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200
North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 752012272:
1. William Tyler Johnson, Jr.,
Sweetwater, Texas, to acquire additional
voting shares of Mesa Financial
Corporation, Sweetwater, Texas, and
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares
of Texas National Bank, Sweetwater,
Texas.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
This meeting will be open to the System, January 12, 2005.
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
Correction and Approval of Minutes.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2004–45:
Senator Ken Salazar and Salazar for
Senate, by Counsel, Marc E. Elias and
Rebecca H. Gordon.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
Definition of Agent for BCRA
Regulations on Coordinated and
Independent Expenditures and NonFederal Funds or Soft Money (11 CFR
109.3 and 300.2(b)).
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the
de Minimis Exemption for Disbursement
of Levin Funds by State, District, and
Local Party Committees.
Final Rules on Contributions and
Donations by Minors.
Routine Administrative Matters.
PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:
Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer,
telephone: (202) 694–1220.
Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–1169 Filed 1–14–05; 2:52 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715–01–M
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:11 Jan 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05–1014 Filed 1–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–S
available for inspection at the offices of
the Board of Governors. Interested
persons may express their views in
writing on the standards enumerated in
the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the
proposal also involves the acquisition of
a nonbanking company, the review also
includes whether the acquisition of the
nonbanking company complies with the
standards in section 4 of the BHC Act
(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise
noted, nonbanking activities will be
conducted throughout the United States.
Additional information on all bank
holding companies may be obtained
from the National Information Center
website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received at the Reserve Bank
indicated or the offices of the Board of
Governors not later than February 11,
2005.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. Nicholas,
Community Affairs Officer) 90
Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55480-0291:
1. Glacier Bancorp, Inc., Kalispell,
Montana; to acquire 100 percent of the
voting shares of Citizens Bank Holding
Company, Pocatello, Idaho, and thereby
indirectly acquire Citizens Community
Bank, Pocatello, Idaho.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, January 12, 2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05–1012 Filed 1–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–S
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Record of Decision
Formations of, Acquisitions by, and
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The General Services Administration
(GSA) has published a Final
Supplement to the 1992 Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Del Rio
Border Station Expansion, Del Rio,
Texas. The Supplement to the 1992
Final EIS is entitled:
The companies listed in this notice
have applied to the Board for approval,
pursuant to the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)
(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part
225), and all other applicable statutes
and regulations to become a bank
holding company and/or to acquire the
assets or the ownership of, control of, or
the power to vote shares of a bank or
bank holding company and all of the
banks and nonbanking companies
owned by the bank holding company,
including the companies listed below.
The applications listed below, as well
as other related filings required by the
Board, are available for immediate
inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank
indicated. The application also will be
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Supplement to the 1992 Del Rio Border
Station Expansion Environmental
Impact Statement—Increased Security
Measures Associated With Phase III
Expansion at the Del Rio Port of Entry;
Del Rio, Val Verde County, TX
Decision
The GSA has decided to increase
security at and around the Del Rio Port
of Entry (POE) in accordance with
measures outlined for heightened
security along the nation’s borders after
the events of September 11, 2001. The
E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM
19JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2005 / Notices
increased security measures would be
implemented in conjunction with the
Phase III expansion activities described
in the 1992 Final EIS.
Purpose and Need
The purpose and need for the
proposed action (as described in the
2004 Supplement to the 1992 EIS, pages
1–1–1–3, available at https://public.geomarine.com/) are to better secure the
border at the Del Rio POE complex
while ensuring efficient flow of lawful
traffic and commerce.
Issues
The 2004 Supplement to the 1992 EIS
analyzed the potential impacts of
implementing increased security
measures at and around the Del Rio POE
complex. Issues associated with the
proposed increased security measures
(identified through scoping) include
land use, transportation, air quality,
noise, socioeconomic (including
environmental justice), and cultural
resources. Issues eliminated from
detailed analysis (due to relevancy to
the proposed action or prior
environmental review in the 1992 EIS)
include soils, hydrology, vegetation and
wildlife (including protected species),
and public services and utilities.
Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were
analyzed to determine which best
satisfied the purpose and need for the
increased security measures.
Alternative 1—No Action Alternative
Under this alternative, no new
security measures would be
implemented to increase security at and
around the Del Rio POE complex. This
alternative would be considered
environmentally preferable and would
result in no land use, transportation, air
quality, noise, socioeconomic (including
environmental justice), or cultural
resources impacts. However,
implementing this alternative would not
allow the GSA to increase security in
accordance with measures outlined for
heightened security along the nation’s
borders. The requirements for increased
security were the primary consideration
in not choosing this alternative.
Alternative 2—Preferred Alternative
Under this alternative, security would
be increased at and around the Del Rio
POE complex, resulting in the
elimination of all pedestrian and
vehicular traffic/access east along Rio
Grande Road. This would be
accomplished by permanently closing a
portion of Rio Grande Road
(approximately 550 feet of road east of
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:11 Jan 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
State Spur 239) (page 2–5 of the
Supplement). As part of implementing
this alternative, the 550-foot stretch of
road would be immediately closed
(through the placement of ‘‘jersey
barriers’’) to quickly realize increased
security and to facilitate construction
associated with Phase III expansion
activities. Additionally, a new
Commercial Exit Control Facility and
exit road would be constructed. After
construction, a portion of the exit road
and corresponding land would be
donated to the City of Del Rio as a
public right-of-way (figure available at
https://public.geo-marine.com/). The
entire length of exit road could then be
used by the City of Del Rio and the
Government for the construction of a
bypass road replacing Rio Grande Road.
As part of implementing this alternative
the GSA would also make available
approximately one acre in the northwest
corner of the government property for
an easement granted to the Faith
Mission (figure available at https://
public.geo-marine.com/). This easement
would be out-parceled by security
fencing and would allow the Faith
Mission to construct service facilities at
some time in the future.
This alternative would be considered
environmentally preferable and would
result in no land use, transportation, air
quality, noise, or cultural resources
impacts. However, eliminating
pedestrian access to Rio Grande Road
east would result in increased travel
time for a small population of lowincome and/or minority visitors of the
Faith Mission. Access to the Faith
Mission would still be possible through
alternate traffic routing; however, this
would increase the travel time of
approximately 42 individuals per
service day that walked. Additionally, if
the Faith Mission elects to locate some
service facilities on the approximately
one acre easement, then those services
would be directly accessible by
pedestrians immediately after
processing through the POE.
Implementing this alternative would
allow the GSA to increase security in
accordance with measures outlined for
heightened security along the nation’s
borders. Although implementation of
this alternative would increase the
travel time to the Faith Mission, the
requirements for increased security
were the primary consideration in
choosing this alternative. In choosing
this alternative to implement, the GSA
has adopted all practicable means to
avoid or minimize environmental harm
(pages 2–4–2–7).
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3035
Alternative 3
Similar to the previous alternative
(Alternative 2), under this alternative,
security would be increased at and
around the Del Rio POE complex,
resulting in the elimination of all
pedestrian and vehicular traffic/access
east along Rio Grande Road. However,
pedestrian traffic would be facilitated
east through the construction of an
elevated walkway. This alternative was
not carried forward for detailed analysis
because of security concerns and the
significant costs associated with
constructing and maintaining an
elevated walkway. These were the
primary considerations in not choosing
this alternative.
Alternative 4
Similar to the previous alternatives
(Alternative 2 and 3), under this
alternative, security would be increased
at and around the Del Rio POE complex,
resulting in the elimination of all
pedestrian and vehicular traffic/access
east along Rio Grande Road. However,
pedestrian traffic would be facilitated
east through the construction of a
pedestrian tunnel. This alternative was
not carried forward for detailed analysis
because of security concerns and the
significant costs associated with
constructing and maintaining a
pedestrian tunnel. These were the
primary considerations in not choosing
this alternative.
Questions and Comments
During the comment period for the
Draft Supplement, the GSA received
two comments; both stated no objection
to the proposed project. The GSA
believes there are no outstanding
environmental issues to be resolved
with implementing increased security
measures at and around the Del Rio POE
facility.
Questions regarding the Supplement
to the 1992 EIS may be directed to Lisa
Schaub, Region 7 Environmental and
Safety Group, GSA 819 Taylor Street
7PWM, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, (817)
978–4233.
Dated: January 10, 2005.
Scott Armey,
Regional Administrator, GSA, Region 7, Fort
Worth, Texas.
[FR Doc. 05–999 Filed 1–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–27–P
E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM
19JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3034-3035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-999]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Record of Decision
The General Services Administration (GSA) has published a Final
Supplement to the 1992 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Del
Rio Border Station Expansion, Del Rio, Texas. The Supplement to the
1992 Final EIS is entitled:
Supplement to the 1992 Del Rio Border Station Expansion Environmental
Impact Statement--Increased Security Measures Associated With Phase III
Expansion at the Del Rio Port of Entry; Del Rio, Val Verde County, TX
Decision
The GSA has decided to increase security at and around the Del Rio
Port of Entry (POE) in accordance with measures outlined for heightened
security along the nation's borders after the events of September 11,
2001. The
[[Page 3035]]
increased security measures would be implemented in conjunction with
the Phase III expansion activities described in the 1992 Final EIS.
Purpose and Need
The purpose and need for the proposed action (as described in the
2004 Supplement to the 1992 EIS, pages 1-1-1-3, available at https://
public.geo-marine.com/) are to better secure the border at the Del Rio
POE complex while ensuring efficient flow of lawful traffic and
commerce.
Issues
The 2004 Supplement to the 1992 EIS analyzed the potential impacts
of implementing increased security measures at and around the Del Rio
POE complex. Issues associated with the proposed increased security
measures (identified through scoping) include land use, transportation,
air quality, noise, socioeconomic (including environmental justice),
and cultural resources. Issues eliminated from detailed analysis (due
to relevancy to the proposed action or prior environmental review in
the 1992 EIS) include soils, hydrology, vegetation and wildlife
(including protected species), and public services and utilities.
Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were analyzed to determine which best
satisfied the purpose and need for the increased security measures.
Alternative 1--No Action Alternative
Under this alternative, no new security measures would be
implemented to increase security at and around the Del Rio POE complex.
This alternative would be considered environmentally preferable and
would result in no land use, transportation, air quality, noise,
socioeconomic (including environmental justice), or cultural resources
impacts. However, implementing this alternative would not allow the GSA
to increase security in accordance with measures outlined for
heightened security along the nation's borders. The requirements for
increased security were the primary consideration in not choosing this
alternative.
Alternative 2--Preferred Alternative
Under this alternative, security would be increased at and around
the Del Rio POE complex, resulting in the elimination of all pedestrian
and vehicular traffic/access east along Rio Grande Road. This would be
accomplished by permanently closing a portion of Rio Grande Road
(approximately 550 feet of road east of State Spur 239) (page 2-5 of
the Supplement). As part of implementing this alternative, the 550-foot
stretch of road would be immediately closed (through the placement of
``jersey barriers'') to quickly realize increased security and to
facilitate construction associated with Phase III expansion activities.
Additionally, a new Commercial Exit Control Facility and exit road
would be constructed. After construction, a portion of the exit road
and corresponding land would be donated to the City of Del Rio as a
public right-of-way (figure available at https://public.geo-marine.com/
). The entire length of exit road could then be used by the City of Del
Rio and the Government for the construction of a bypass road replacing
Rio Grande Road. As part of implementing this alternative the GSA would
also make available approximately one acre in the northwest corner of
the government property for an easement granted to the Faith Mission
(figure available at https://public.geo-marine.com/). This easement
would be out-parceled by security fencing and would allow the Faith
Mission to construct service facilities at some time in the future.
This alternative would be considered environmentally preferable and
would result in no land use, transportation, air quality, noise, or
cultural resources impacts. However, eliminating pedestrian access to
Rio Grande Road east would result in increased travel time for a small
population of low-income and/or minority visitors of the Faith Mission.
Access to the Faith Mission would still be possible through alternate
traffic routing; however, this would increase the travel time of
approximately 42 individuals per service day that walked. Additionally,
if the Faith Mission elects to locate some service facilities on the
approximately one acre easement, then those services would be directly
accessible by pedestrians immediately after processing through the POE.
Implementing this alternative would allow the GSA to increase security
in accordance with measures outlined for heightened security along the
nation's borders. Although implementation of this alternative would
increase the travel time to the Faith Mission, the requirements for
increased security were the primary consideration in choosing this
alternative. In choosing this alternative to implement, the GSA has
adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm
(pages 2-4-2-7).
Alternative 3
Similar to the previous alternative (Alternative 2), under this
alternative, security would be increased at and around the Del Rio POE
complex, resulting in the elimination of all pedestrian and vehicular
traffic/access east along Rio Grande Road. However, pedestrian traffic
would be facilitated east through the construction of an elevated
walkway. This alternative was not carried forward for detailed analysis
because of security concerns and the significant costs associated with
constructing and maintaining an elevated walkway. These were the
primary considerations in not choosing this alternative.
Alternative 4
Similar to the previous alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3), under
this alternative, security would be increased at and around the Del Rio
POE complex, resulting in the elimination of all pedestrian and
vehicular traffic/access east along Rio Grande Road. However,
pedestrian traffic would be facilitated east through the construction
of a pedestrian tunnel. This alternative was not carried forward for
detailed analysis because of security concerns and the significant
costs associated with constructing and maintaining a pedestrian tunnel.
These were the primary considerations in not choosing this alternative.
Questions and Comments
During the comment period for the Draft Supplement, the GSA
received two comments; both stated no objection to the proposed
project. The GSA believes there are no outstanding environmental issues
to be resolved with implementing increased security measures at and
around the Del Rio POE facility.
Questions regarding the Supplement to the 1992 EIS may be directed
to Lisa Schaub, Region 7 Environmental and Safety Group, GSA 819 Taylor
Street 7PWM, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, (817) 978-4233.
Dated: January 10, 2005.
Scott Armey,
Regional Administrator, GSA, Region 7, Fort Worth, Texas.
[FR Doc. 05-999 Filed 1-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-P
