Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.: Bemidji to Grand Rapids 230 kV Transmission Line Project, 75170-75171 [2010-30298]

Download as PDF 75170 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 231 / Thursday, December 2, 2010 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS–2010–0111] APHIS User Fee Web Site Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service charges user fees, as authorized by law, to recover the costs of providing certain services. This notice announces the availability of a Web site that contains information about the Agency’s user fees. ADDRESSES: The Agency’s user fee Web site is located at: https:// www.aphis.usda.gov/userfees/ index.shtml. SUMMARY: For information about the Web site, contact Ms. Cindy Howard, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Regulatory Coordination, Policy and Program Development, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 20, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734–5957. For information about APHIS’ user fees, contact Mrs. Kris Caraher, Section Head, User Fees Section, Financial Services Branch, FMD, MRPBS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 54, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734–0882. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A user fee is a charge to identifiable recipients (e.g., individuals or firms)—users—of goods and services provided by the Federal Government. The Federal Government charges user fees only when prescribed or authorized by law. User fees are charged for goods and services that directly benefit the recipient or that are necessary to protect the public from incurring costs that may result from the recipient’s activities. Through the user fee, recipients of the goods or services pay the Federal Government for the cost of providing the goods or services. The cost is not borne by the general taxpayer. APHIS charges a user fee to recover the costs of providing the following goods and services: • Agricultural quarantine and inspection (AQI) services • Export certification of plants and plant products • Veterinary services for imports and exports of live animals and products • Veterinary diagnostic goods and services Additionally, when Federal employees provide certain import- and exportrelated services funded by user fees WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:28 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 223001 outside their normal working hours, APHIS may charge an additional fee to cover the costs of overtime. This category of services is called reimbursable overtime services. For each of these user fee programs, the Web site provides a description of the services or goods for which a fee is charged, the statutory authority for APHIS to collect and retain the fees, the current rates, how APHIS determined the amount of the fees, any scheduled rate changes, and other information pertinent to that user fee program. In the near future, we plan to add information on the status of collections and expenditures in each user fee program. The Web site also answers general questions about APHIS’ user fees, including: • Why does APHIS charge user fees for some activities and not others? • What happens to the money that APHIS collects through user fees? • How does APHIS determine the amount of its fees? • How reliable are the projections upon which the fees are based? • What happens when variable factors fluctuate? • How often will user fees be adjusted? • How often are the fees reviewed? • What is the process for changing the fees? APHIS developed the user fee Web site to enhance transparency and predictability regarding its user fee programs. The Web site will include a way in the near future for the public to submit comments or questions to APHIS on either the Web page itself (e.g., ease of use, content) or on the user fee programs or specific fees. We also plan to allow interested members of the public to sign up to receive notifications when changes are made to the user fee Web page. Done in Washington, DC, this 16th day of November 2010. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. 2010–30208 Filed 12–1–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–34–P Rural Utilities Service Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.: Bemidji to Grand Rapids 230 kV Transmission Line Project Rural Utilities Service, USDA. Notice of availability of Record of Decision. AGENCY: ACTION: Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 To obtain copies of the ROD, or for further information, contact: Ms. Stephanie Strength, Environmental Protection Specialist, USDA, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 1571, Room 2244–S, Washington, DC 20250–1571, telephone: (970) 403–3559, fax: (202) 690–0649, or e-mail: Stephanie.strength@wdc.usda.gov. A copy of the ROD can be viewed online at: https://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/ eis.htm. ADDRESSES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PO 00000 The Rural Utilities Service, hereinafter referred to as RUS and/or the Agency, has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Bemidji to Grand Rapids 230 kV Transmission Line Project (Project) in Beltrami, Hubbard, Itasca, and Cass counties, Minnesota. The Administrator of RUS has signed the ROD, which is effective upon signing. The RUS, U.S. Forest Service Chippewa National Forest (CNF), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Division of Resource Management (LLBO DRM) cooperated in the development of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) and in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508), and RUS’s NEPA implementing regulations (7 CFR Part 1794). RUS is the lead federal agency as defined at 40 CFR 1501.5, and CNF and USACE are cooperating agencies. LLBO DRM accepted an invitation to participate as a cooperating agency. As the lead federal agency, and as part of its broad environmental review process, RUS must take into account the effect of the proposal on historic properties in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C 470f) and its implementing regulation ‘‘Protection of Historic Properties’’ (36 CFR Part 800). The Final EIS evaluated the potential environmental impacts of and alternatives to the Project proposed by Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota) for RUS financing to construct the 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Wilton Substation near Bemidji, Minnesota and the Boswell Substation near Grand Rapids, Minnesota. The Project is being jointly developed by Minnkota, Otter Tail Power Company, and Minnesota Power (The Utilities). SUMMARY: Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02DEN1.SGM 02DEN1 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 231 / Thursday, December 2, 2010 / Notices SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Minnkota’s proposed Project is to construct a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Wilton Substation near Bemidji, Minnesota and the Boswell Substation near Grand Rapids, Minnesota, which will cross portions of Beltrami, Hubbard, Itasca, and Cass counties. The Project involves modifying the Wilton and Boswell substations, constructing a new 115 kV breaker station at Nary Junction, Minnesota, and depending on the route alternative selected, upgrading the existing or constructing a new substation in the Cass Lake, Minnesota area. The purpose of the Project is for the Applicants to meet projected future electric demand and to maintain electric transmission reliability standards in accordance with the requirements of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The Project as proposed provides increased voltage support not only to the Bemidji to Grand Rapids area, including the Leech Lake Reservation, but is also required to improve the regional transmission reliability throughout the Red River Valley and north central Minnesota. Refer to Final EIS, pp. 2–3, and the Alternative Evaluation Study, Section 1.2, for additional detail. In accordance with NEPA, the CEQ regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, and applicable agency NEPA implementing regulations, RUS, CNF, USACE, and LLBO DRM cooperated in the development of a Final EIS to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. The decision being documented in RUS’s ROD is that the Agency agrees to consider, subject to loan approval, funding the proposed Project (Route Alternative 4). Because of the distinct federal actions being proposed, RUS, USACE and CNF decided to issue separate RODs. LLBO DRM’s decision will be through a Tribal Resolution. On July 18, 2008, RUS published in the Federal Register at 73 FR 41312 a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the proposed Project. On March 3, 2010, RUS published its Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS for the proposed Project in the Federal Register at 75 FR 9573. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged receipt of the Draft EIS on March 5, 2010, from RUS. The 45-day comment period ended on April 19, 2010. All comments on the Draft EIS have been entered into the administrative record, responses are included in the Final EIS, and the Final EIS was modified as appropriate. RUS published its NOA of the Final EIS for the proposed Project in VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:28 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 223001 the Federal Register on September 15, 2010 at 75 FR 56051. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged receipt of the Final EIS on September 17, 2010, from RUS. The 30-day waiting period ended on October 18, 2010. One comment was received and is addressed in RUS’s ROD. After considering various ways to meet these future needs, Minnkota identified construction of the proposed Project (Route Alternative 4) as its best course of action. The Final EIS considered 11 alternatives to meet the Project need, including five alternative route locations. These alternatives were evaluated in terms of cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility, and environmental factors (e.g., soils, topography and geology, water resources, air quality, biological resources, the acoustic environment, recreation, cultural and historic resources, visual resources, transportation, farmland, land use, human health and safety, the socioeconomic environment, environmental justice, and cumulative effects). The Final EIS analyzes in detail the No Action Alternative and Route Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. See ROD Section IV.b. ‘‘Alternatives Not Selected and RUS’ Rational’’ for the rationale for eliminating the alternatives. The resources or environmental factors that could be affected by the proposed Project were evaluated in detail in the Final EIS. These issues are summarized in EIS Table ES–2: ‘‘Comparative Impacts of Route Alternatives.’’ Based on an evaluation of the information and impact analyses presented in the EIS, including the evaluation of all alternatives, and in consideration of the Agency’s NEPA implementing regulations, Environmental Policies and Procedures, as amended (7 CFR Part 1794), RUS finds that the evaluation of reasonable alternatives is consistent with NEPA. The Agency has selected the Route Alternative 4 as its preferred alternative. Because the proposed Project may involve action in floodplains or wetlands, this Notice also serves as a final notice of action in floodplains and wetlands (in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990). This Notice concludes RUS’s compliance with NEPA and the Agency’s ‘‘Environmental Policies and Procedures.’’ Dated: November 23, 2010. Jonathan Adelstein, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. 2010–30298 Filed 12–1–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–15–P PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 75171 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Agency: U.S. Census Bureau. Title: Annual Capital Expenditures Survey. Form Number(s): ACE–1(S), ACE– 1(M), ACE–1(L), ACE–2. OMB Control Number: 0607–0782. Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection. Burden Hours: 153,300. Number of Respondents: 77,250. Average Hours Per Response: 1.98 hours. Needs and Uses: A major concern of economic policymakers is the adequacy of investment in plant and equipment. Data on the amount of business expenditures for new plant and equipment and measures of the stock of existing facilities are critical to evaluating productivity growth, the ability of U.S. business to compete with foreign business, changes in industrial capacity, and overall economic performance. The ACES survey is the sole source of detailed comprehensive statistics on investment in buildings and other structures, machinery, and equipment by private nonfarm businesses in the United States. This request is for a continuation of a currently approved collection and will cover the 2010 through 2012 ACES (conducted in fiscal years 2011 through 2013). Changes from the previous ACES authorization are the elimination of detailed capital expenditures by type of structure and type of equipment. These data, collected every five years, were collected in the 2008 ACES and will not be collected again until the 2013 ACES. The ACES is an integral part of the Federal Government’s effort to improve the quality and usefulness of National economic statistics. Federal agencies, including the Census Bureau, use these data to improve and supplement ongoing statistical programs: The Census Bureau uses the data to improve the quality of monthly economic indicators of investment. The Bureau’s Value of New Construction Put in Place survey currently uses the ACES data to benchmark its industrial buildings data. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) uses the data in refining and evaluating annual estimates of investment in structures and equipment E:\FR\FM\02DEN1.SGM 02DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 231 (Thursday, December 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75170-75171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30298]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service


Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.: Bemidji to Grand Rapids 230 kV 
Transmission Line Project

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability of Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service, hereinafter referred to as RUS 
and/or the Agency, has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Bemidji to Grand 
Rapids 230 kV Transmission Line Project (Project) in Beltrami, Hubbard, 
Itasca, and Cass counties, Minnesota. The Administrator of RUS has 
signed the ROD, which is effective upon signing. The RUS, U.S. Forest 
Service Chippewa National Forest (CNF), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(USACE), and Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Division of Resource Management 
(LLBO DRM) cooperated in the development of a Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (Final EIS) prepared pursuant to the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (U.S.C. 4231 et seq.) and in 
accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) 
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 
Parts 1500-1508), and RUS's NEPA implementing regulations (7 CFR Part 
1794). RUS is the lead federal agency as defined at 40 CFR 1501.5, and 
CNF and USACE are cooperating agencies. LLBO DRM accepted an invitation 
to participate as a cooperating agency. As the lead federal agency, and 
as part of its broad environmental review process, RUS must take into 
account the effect of the proposal on historic properties in accordance 
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C 
470f) and its implementing regulation ``Protection of Historic 
Properties'' (36 CFR Part 800). The Final EIS evaluated the potential 
environmental impacts of and alternatives to the Project proposed by 
Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota) for RUS financing to 
construct the 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Wilton 
Substation near Bemidji, Minnesota and the Boswell Substation near 
Grand Rapids, Minnesota. The Project is being jointly developed by 
Minnkota, Otter Tail Power Company, and Minnesota Power (The 
Utilities).

ADDRESSES: To obtain copies of the ROD, or for further information, 
contact: Ms. Stephanie Strength, Environmental Protection Specialist, 
USDA, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 
1571, Room 2244-S, Washington, DC 20250-1571, telephone: (970) 403-
3559, fax: (202) 690-0649, or e-mail: Stephanie.strength@wdc.usda.gov. 
A copy of the ROD can be viewed online at: https://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/eis.htm.

[[Page 75171]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Minnkota's proposed Project is to construct 
a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Wilton Substation 
near Bemidji, Minnesota and the Boswell Substation near Grand Rapids, 
Minnesota, which will cross portions of Beltrami, Hubbard, Itasca, and 
Cass counties. The Project involves modifying the Wilton and Boswell 
substations, constructing a new 115 kV breaker station at Nary 
Junction, Minnesota, and depending on the route alternative selected, 
upgrading the existing or constructing a new substation in the Cass 
Lake, Minnesota area. The purpose of the Project is for the Applicants 
to meet projected future electric demand and to maintain electric 
transmission reliability standards in accordance with the requirements 
of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The 
Project as proposed provides increased voltage support not only to the 
Bemidji to Grand Rapids area, including the Leech Lake Reservation, but 
is also required to improve the regional transmission reliability 
throughout the Red River Valley and north central Minnesota. Refer to 
Final EIS, pp. 2-3, and the Alternative Evaluation Study, Section 1.2, 
for additional detail.
    In accordance with NEPA, the CEQ regulations for implementing the 
procedural provisions of NEPA, and applicable agency NEPA implementing 
regulations, RUS, CNF, USACE, and LLBO DRM cooperated in the 
development of a Final EIS to assess the potential environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed Project. The decision being 
documented in RUS's ROD is that the Agency agrees to consider, subject 
to loan approval, funding the proposed Project (Route Alternative 4). 
Because of the distinct federal actions being proposed, RUS, USACE and 
CNF decided to issue separate RODs. LLBO DRM's decision will be through 
a Tribal Resolution.
    On July 18, 2008, RUS published in the Federal Register at 73 FR 
41312 a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the proposed Project. On 
March 3, 2010, RUS published its Notice of Availability (NOA) of the 
Draft EIS for the proposed Project in the Federal Register at 75 FR 
9573. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged receipt of 
the Draft EIS on March 5, 2010, from RUS. The 45-day comment period 
ended on April 19, 2010. All comments on the Draft EIS have been 
entered into the administrative record, responses are included in the 
Final EIS, and the Final EIS was modified as appropriate. RUS published 
its NOA of the Final EIS for the proposed Project in the Federal 
Register on September 15, 2010 at 75 FR 56051. The U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency acknowledged receipt of the Final EIS on September 
17, 2010, from RUS. The 30-day waiting period ended on October 18, 
2010. One comment was received and is addressed in RUS's ROD.
    After considering various ways to meet these future needs, Minnkota 
identified construction of the proposed Project (Route Alternative 4) 
as its best course of action.
    The Final EIS considered 11 alternatives to meet the Project need, 
including five alternative route locations. These alternatives were 
evaluated in terms of cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility, and 
environmental factors (e.g., soils, topography and geology, water 
resources, air quality, biological resources, the acoustic environment, 
recreation, cultural and historic resources, visual resources, 
transportation, farmland, land use, human health and safety, the 
socioeconomic environment, environmental justice, and cumulative 
effects).
    The Final EIS analyzes in detail the No Action Alternative and 
Route Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. See ROD Section IV.b. ``Alternatives 
Not Selected and RUS' Rational'' for the rationale for eliminating the 
alternatives. The resources or environmental factors that could be 
affected by the proposed Project were evaluated in detail in the Final 
EIS. These issues are summarized in EIS Table ES-2: ``Comparative 
Impacts of Route Alternatives.''
    Based on an evaluation of the information and impact analyses 
presented in the EIS, including the evaluation of all alternatives, and 
in consideration of the Agency's NEPA implementing regulations, 
Environmental Policies and Procedures, as amended (7 CFR Part 1794), 
RUS finds that the evaluation of reasonable alternatives is consistent 
with NEPA. The Agency has selected the Route Alternative 4 as its 
preferred alternative.
    Because the proposed Project may involve action in floodplains or 
wetlands, this Notice also serves as a final notice of action in 
floodplains and wetlands (in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 
11990). This Notice concludes RUS's compliance with NEPA and the 
Agency's ``Environmental Policies and Procedures.''

    Dated: November 23, 2010.
Jonathan Adelstein,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-30298 Filed 12-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.