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: https://
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