Proposed Modernization of the Coast Guard; Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment, 56857-56858 [E8-22934]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices management of DHS Privacy Act record systems. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary Privacy Act of 1974; Retirement of System of Records Privacy Office, DHS. Notice of the retirement of one Privacy Act system of records notice. AGENCY: ACTION: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security is giving notice that it proposes to retire the following Privacy Act system of records notice, Treasury/CS.054 Confidential Statements of Employment and Financial Interests (66 FR 52984 October 18, 2001), from its inventory of record systems and rely upon the Government-wide system of records notice issued by the Office of Government Ethics, OGE/GOVT–2 Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports (68 FR 24722 May 8, 2003), which is written to cover all confidential statements of employment and financial interests record systems submitted by Federal Government employees. DATES: These changes will take effect on October 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, by telephone (703) 235–0780 or facsimile (703) 235– 0442. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its ongoing integration and management efforts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is retiring the system of records notice, Treasury/CS.054 Confidential Statements of Employment and Financial Interests (66 FR 52984 October 18, 2001), that was issued by the Customs Service, Department of the Treasury prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. DHS will continue to collect and maintain records regarding individuals who submit confidential statements of employment and financial interests and will rely upon the existing Federal Government-wide system of records notice titled OGE/GOVT–2 Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports (68 FR 24722 May 8, 2003), which is written to cover Federal employees who submit confidential statements of employment and financial interests. Eliminating this notice will have no adverse impacts on individuals, but will promote the overall streamlining and ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Sep 29, 2008 Jkt 214001 Dated: September 24, 2008. Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E8–23006 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–10–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG–2008–0991] Proposed Modernization of the Coast Guard; Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of Availability of Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Coast Guard modernization. Based on the PEA’s analysis and the mitigation plan committed to in the PEA, the Coast Guard determined that an environmental impact statement is not required, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been issued for the proposed action. Availability: Electronic copies of the Final PEA and FONSI, as well as comments received on the Draft PEA and FONSI, are available from the Federal Docket Management Facility at Internet Web site address: http:// www.regulations.gov using the docket number USCG–2008–0991. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, please contact Ms. Kebby Kelley, USCG, telephone (202) 475–5690, e-mail: Kebby.Kelley@uscg.mil, or Mr. Frank Esposito, USCG, telephone (202) 372– 3746, e-mail: Frank.H.Esposito@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, please call Ms. Renee Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), the Coast Guard prepared a Final PEA and FONSI for the Proposed Modernization of the Coast Guard. PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 56857 Response to Comments On August 15, 2008, the Coast Guard initiated a 30-day public comment period with publication of a Notice of Availability of the Proposed Modernization of the Coast Guard Draft PEA in the Federal Register (73 FR 47959). The Coast Guard received 23 public comments during this period. Summary of Comments and the USCG Responses Many of the 23 separate comments either acknowledged receipt or noted approval of the Coast Guard’s modernization proposal. The remaining comments fell into the following four groups. Several comments focused on the managerial philosophy and motivation of the Coast Guard in proposing this modernization. While these comments are useful to decision makers, they are not relevant to the environmental impact analyses associated with the proposed modernization and, therefore, will not be addressed in the Final PEA. A second group of comments focused on decisions that are yet to be made, such as exact locations of possible new facilities or precise organizations that might or might not be moved. While these comments are also useful to decision makers, they are not yet ripe for further analysis and will not be considered further in the Final PEA. As stated in the Draft PEA, NEPA analysis and documentation may be prepared for future individual actions and their sitespecific impacts if such actions are not adequately covered by this programmatic NEPA document. The third group of comments advocated moving large segments of the Coast Guard to various new locations around the nation. These alternatives do not meet the purpose and need described in the PEA to minimize disruption to the workforce, minimize costs of modernization (such as, by utilizing existing facilities), and minimize disruption to mission execution. These proposals are, therefore, not evaluated in detail in the Final PEA. Finally, a fourth group of comments was not addressed because it raised matters, such as the Deepwater Replacement contract, that are outside the scope of the Coast Guard modernization decision. Background and Purpose The Coast Guard intends to modernize its command structure, support systems, and business practices to position itself for sustainable and effective mission execution into the E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM 30SEN1 56858 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES twenty-first century. The Coast Guard prepared a PEA that identified and examined the reasonable alternatives and assessed their potential environmental impacts. The PEA identified potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with proposed modernization, including Coast Guard mission-related impacts and site-specific impacts. The Coast Guard developed two action alternatives to achieve modernization, a full modernization alternative and a partial modernization alternative. These two alternatives represented the upper and lower levels of change required to achieve the purpose and need of the modernization and, therefore, captured the range of social, economic, and environmental impacts that would occur while implementing modernization initiatives. The full modernization alternative emphasizes co-location of mission support and operations resources and functions and included potential construction at the Coast Guard Yard, Curtis Bay, Maryland. The partial modernization alternative would focus on operating from existing locations rather than co-locating functional resources in a single location and includes no new construction. The partial modernization alternative would minimally achieve the purpose and need for modernization, while the full modernization alternative would allow the Coast Guard to reach the fully envisioned functionality of modernization. The Coast Guard prefers the full modernization alternative. Either modernization alternative would be implemented over at least 5 years. The Coast Guard has determined that the mitigation committed to in the Final Coast Guard-prepared PEA will reduce all potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Thus, the Final PEA was determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed action and provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an environmental impact statement is not required. A Finding of No Significant Impact was, therefore, issued for the full modernization alternative which is the Coast Guard’s preferred alternative. Dated: September 24, 2008. Clifford I. Pearson, Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. E8–22934 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Sep 29, 2008 Jkt 214001 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA–1793–DR] Arkansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA–1793–DR), dated September 18, 2008, and related determinations. DATES: Effective Date: September 18, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 18, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows: I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Arkansas resulting from severe storms and flooding during the period of September 2–8, 2008, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5207 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Arkansas. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses. You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate. Direct Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program also will be PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kenneth M. Riley of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster. The following areas of the State of Arkansas have been designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster: Ashley, Bradley, Calhoun, Chicot, Clark, Cleveland, Conway, Dallas, Drew, Garland, Grant, Hot Spring, Lincoln, Montgomery, Perry, Prairie, Saline, and Van Buren Counties for Public Assistance. Direct Federal assistance is authorized. All counties within the State of Arkansas are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance— Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8–22950 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–10–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA–1786–DR] Louisiana; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA–1786–DR), dated September 2, 2008, and related determinations. E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM 30SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 190 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56857-56858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22934]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0991]


Proposed Modernization of the Coast Guard; Final Programmatic 
Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final Programmatic Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the Final 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Coast Guard 
modernization. Based on the PEA's analysis and the mitigation plan 
committed to in the PEA, the Coast Guard determined that an 
environmental impact statement is not required, and a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) has been issued for the proposed action.
    Availability: Electronic copies of the Final PEA and FONSI, as well 
as comments received on the Draft PEA and FONSI, are available from the 
Federal Docket Management Facility at Internet Web site address: http:/
/www.regulations.gov using the docket number USCG-2008-0991.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, 
please contact Ms. Kebby Kelley, USCG, telephone (202) 475-5690, e-
mail: Kebby.Kelley@uscg.mil, or Mr. Frank Esposito, USCG, telephone 
(202) 372-3746, e-mail: Frank.H.Esposito@uscg.mil. If you have 
questions on viewing the docket, please call Ms. Renee Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as implemented by the Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Coast 
Guard prepared a Final PEA and FONSI for the Proposed Modernization of 
the Coast Guard.

Response to Comments

    On August 15, 2008, the Coast Guard initiated a 30-day public 
comment period with publication of a Notice of Availability of the 
Proposed Modernization of the Coast Guard Draft PEA in the Federal 
Register (73 FR 47959). The Coast Guard received 23 public comments 
during this period.

Summary of Comments and the USCG Responses

    Many of the 23 separate comments either acknowledged receipt or 
noted approval of the Coast Guard's modernization proposal. The 
remaining comments fell into the following four groups.
    Several comments focused on the managerial philosophy and 
motivation of the Coast Guard in proposing this modernization. While 
these comments are useful to decision makers, they are not relevant to 
the environmental impact analyses associated with the proposed 
modernization and, therefore, will not be addressed in the Final PEA.
    A second group of comments focused on decisions that are yet to be 
made, such as exact locations of possible new facilities or precise 
organizations that might or might not be moved. While these comments 
are also useful to decision makers, they are not yet ripe for further 
analysis and will not be considered further in the Final PEA. As stated 
in the Draft PEA, NEPA analysis and documentation may be prepared for 
future individual actions and their site-specific impacts if such 
actions are not adequately covered by this programmatic NEPA document.
    The third group of comments advocated moving large segments of the 
Coast Guard to various new locations around the nation. These 
alternatives do not meet the purpose and need described in the PEA to 
minimize disruption to the workforce, minimize costs of modernization 
(such as, by utilizing existing facilities), and minimize disruption to 
mission execution. These proposals are, therefore, not evaluated in 
detail in the Final PEA.
    Finally, a fourth group of comments was not addressed because it 
raised matters, such as the Deepwater Replacement contract, that are 
outside the scope of the Coast Guard modernization decision.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard intends to modernize its command structure, support 
systems, and business practices to position itself for sustainable and 
effective mission execution into the

[[Page 56858]]

twenty-first century. The Coast Guard prepared a PEA that identified 
and examined the reasonable alternatives and assessed their potential 
environmental impacts. The PEA identified potential direct, indirect, 
and cumulative impacts associated with proposed modernization, 
including Coast Guard mission-related impacts and site-specific 
impacts.
    The Coast Guard developed two action alternatives to achieve 
modernization, a full modernization alternative and a partial 
modernization alternative. These two alternatives represented the upper 
and lower levels of change required to achieve the purpose and need of 
the modernization and, therefore, captured the range of social, 
economic, and environmental impacts that would occur while implementing 
modernization initiatives. The full modernization alternative 
emphasizes co-location of mission support and operations resources and 
functions and included potential construction at the Coast Guard Yard, 
Curtis Bay, Maryland. The partial modernization alternative would focus 
on operating from existing locations rather than co-locating functional 
resources in a single location and includes no new construction. The 
partial modernization alternative would minimally achieve the purpose 
and need for modernization, while the full modernization alternative 
would allow the Coast Guard to reach the fully envisioned functionality 
of modernization. The Coast Guard prefers the full modernization 
alternative. Either modernization alternative would be implemented over 
at least 5 years.
    The Coast Guard has determined that the mitigation committed to in 
the Final Coast Guard-prepared PEA will reduce all potentially 
significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Thus, 
the Final PEA was determined to adequately and accurately discuss the 
environmental issues and impacts of the proposed action and provides 
sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an environmental 
impact statement is not required. A Finding of No Significant Impact 
was, therefore, issued for the full modernization alternative which is 
the Coast Guard's preferred alternative.

    Dated: September 24, 2008.
Clifford I. Pearson,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. E8-22934 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P