76822 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2004 / Notices 

19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Commission’s Public Reverence 

Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Phlx. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

publicly available. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–Phlx–

2004–91 and should be submitted on or 

before January 12, 2005.

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.19

J. Lynn Taylor, 

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–27939 Filed 12–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4939] 

HR/REE—Office of Recruitment, 

Examination, and Employment; 60-Day 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: DS–3091, Thomas R. 

Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellowship 

Program, OMB # 1405–0143

ACTION: Notice of request for public 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State is 

seeking Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval for the 

information collection described below. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 

days for public comment in the Federal 

Register preceding submission to OMB. 

This process is conducted in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. 

• Title of Information Collection:

Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs 

Fellowship Program. 

• OMB Control Number: 1405–0143. 

• Type of Request: Extension of a 

Currently Approved Collection. 

• Originating Office: HR/REE. 

• Form Number: DS–3091. 

• Respondents: University Graduate 

and Undergraduate Students. 

• Estimated Number of Respondents:

500. 

• Estimated Number of Responses:

500. 

• Average Hours Per Response: 3. 

• Total Estimated Burden: 1,500. 

• Frequency: Annual. 

• Obligation to Respond: Required to 

Obtain a Benefit.

DATES: The Department will accept 

comments from the public up to sixty 

days from December 2, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by the following methods: 

• Email: BetheaND@state.gov.

• Mail: Department of State, 2401 E 

Street NW., SA–1 RmH518, Washington, 

DC 20522. 

• Fax: 202–261–8841 Attn: Pickering 

Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct requests for additional 

information regarding the collection 

listed in this notice, including requests 

of the proposed information collection 

and supporting documents, to Norris 

Bethea, Department of State, 2401 E 

Street, NW, 5H, Washington, DC 20522, 

who may be reached on 202–647–8994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

soliciting public comments to permit 

the Department of State to: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the agency. 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used. 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected. 

• Minimize the reporting burden on 

those who are to respond, including 

through the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of technology. 

Abstract: The Department of State 

collects this information to identify 

qualified candidates for the Thomas R. 

Pickering Foreign Affairs Program. 

Methodology: Applications are 

accepted by mail.

Dated: October 20, 2004. 

Ruben Torres, 

Executive Director, Bureau of Human 

Resources, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 04–27989 Filed 12–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4940] 

Finding of No Significant Impact and 

Summary Environmental 

Assessment—Tornillo-Guadalupe New 

International Bridge, County of El 

Paso, TX 

The proposed action is to issue a 

Presidential Permit to the County of El 

Paso, Texas to construct, operate and 

maintain an international vehicular and 

pedestrian bridge (the proposed 

‘‘Tornillo-Guadalupe New International 

Bridge’’), its approaches and facilities at 

the international boundary between the 

United States and Mexico, southeast of 

the city of El Paso, Texas, approximately 

1,950 feet upstream on the Rio Grande 

from the existing Fabens-Caseta Bridge, 

near the small community of Caseta that 

is within the municipality of Guadalupe 

in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico. 

I. Background 

The U.S. Department of State (‘‘the 

Department’’) is charged with the 

issuance of Presidential Permits for the 

construction of international bridges 

between the United States and Mexico 

under the International Bridge Act of 

1972, 86 Stat. 731, 33 U.S.C. Section 535 

et seq., and Executive Order 11423 of 

August 16, 1968, 33 FR 11741 (1968), as 

amended by Executive Order 12847 of 

May 17, 1993, 58 FR 29511 (1993), 

Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 

2003, 68 FR 4075 (2003), and Executive 

Order 13337 of April 30, 2004, 69 FR 

25299 (2004). 

In 2001, Raba-Kistner Consultants, 

Inc. (RK) prepared, on behalf of the 

Presidential Permit applicant, the 

County of El Paso, Texas (the 

‘‘Sponsor’’), a draft Environmental 

Assessment of the proposed TornilloGuadalupe New International Bridge, 

port of entry, and connecting roadway. 

This Environmental Assessment was 

submitted to the Department as part of 

the Sponsor’s application for a 

Presidential Permit. The Department 

placed a notice in the Federal Register

regarding the receipt of the Sponsor’s 

application for a Presidential permit and 

seeking public comments regarding the 

application (68 FR 43567 (2003). No 

public comments were received in 

response to this notice. 

The Department has acted as the lead 

federal agency in the preparation and 

completion of the Environmental 

Assessment and has worked to address 

concerns or other issues that have been 

raised by cooperating governmental 

agencies. The Department, consistent 

with Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) and Department of State 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2004 / Notices 76823

regulations implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’), 

has conducted its own, independent 

review of the Environmental 

Assessment. Numerous Federal, State 

and local agencies have also 

independently reviewed the 

Environmental Assessment. Each such 

‘‘cooperating agency’’ has approved or 

accepted the Environmental 

Assessment, with some recommending 

certain mitigation measures. These 

cooperating agencies are: 

U.S. Government: The Department of 

Homeland Security, General Services 

Administration, United States Section of 

the International Boundary and Water 

Commission, Department of 

Transportation, Department of the 

Interior, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Food and Drug Administration, 

Department of Defense, Department of 

Commerce, Department of Justice, and 

the Council on Environmental Quality. 

State of Texas: Commission on 

Environmental Quality, Office of the 

Attorney General, State Historical 

Commission, Department of 

Transportation, Department of 

Agriculture, Parks and Wildlife 

Department, and the Rio Grande 

Council of Governments. 

The Sponsor has worked closely with 

the Federal and state agencies that have 

raised concerns to address those 

concerns about the possible 

environmental impacts of this project. 

The draft final Environmental 

Assessment, as amended and 

supplemented, together with the 

comments submitted by Federal and 

state agencies, the responses to these 

comments, and all correspondence 

between the agencies and the Sponsor 

addressing the agencies’ concerns, 

constitute the ‘‘Final Environmental 

Assessment.’’ Based on this Final 

Environmental Assessment, including 

mitigation measures that El Paso County 

has undertaken or is prepared to 

undertake, and the Department’s 

independent review of that assessment, 

the Department has concluded that the 

issuance of the Presidential Permit 

would not have a significant impact on 

the quality of the human environment 

within the United States. Therefore, a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) is adopted and, in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., CEQ 

regulations, 40 CFR 1501.4 and 1508.13, 

and Department of State regulations, 22 

CFR 161.8(c), an environmental impact 

statement (‘‘EIS’’) will not be prepared.

II. Summary Environmental 

Assessment 

A. The Proposed Project (Preferred 

Alternative) 

The proposed Bridge Site is 

approximately 1,950 feet upstream of 

the existing Fabens-Caseta Bridge. The 

new bridge will be 1,274 feet long and 

94 feet wide and will have six vehicular 

lanes and two pedestrian sidewalks. The 

County will obtain a 271.75-acre 

contiguous tract of land for the 

construction of all components of the 

border facilities. The proposed Bridge 

Site was selected as the preferred 

alternative because it represents the 

most effective use of financial resources 

in the United States and is the most 

consistent with the Mexican State of 

Chihuahua’s planning and studies, 

including plans to build a new highway 

in Mexico that would begin at 

Samalayuca on the main JuarezChihuahua highway and end at a 

location approximately 600 meters west 

of the proposed location of the new 

bridge. 

The proposed roadway is designed to 

originate at the Tornillo-Guadalupe New 

International Bridge and border 

facilities and to route passenger and 

commercial vehicular traffic north on a 

new major roadway to its terminus at 

the Interstate Highway-10 (I–10) and 

Texas Farm to Market 3380 (FM 3380) 

interchange. The anticipated length of 

the major collector is approximately 6.0 

miles plus 1.5 miles, which are 

included for access roadways, side road 

connectors, and interchange 

realignments. These features will 

require approximately 260 acres of land 

to be acquired for right of way purposes. 

The width of the right of way is 200 feet, 

which is sufficient to accommodate the 

necessary roadway cross section plus all 

drainage and storm water retention 

facilities that may be necessary. 

The first phase will be a 2-lane 

roadway with shoulders along both 

sides and a grade separation over the 

existing State Highway 20 (SH 20) and 

Union Pacific Railroad Company’s 

(UPRR) tracks. The final cross section is 

to be a 4-lane roadway with shoulders 

and dedicated left-turn lanes at most 

intersections. Free-flow culverts or 

bridges will be required at crossings 

under the jurisdiction of the El Paso 

County Water Improvement District No. 

1. 

This roadway alternative was selected 

as the preferred alternative because it 

was the least intrusive and most costeffective alignment. Five residential 

structures were identified within the 

proposed project’s alignment. Two 

residential structures are located 

adjacent to the border facilities and 

three are near SH 20 and the UPRR 

tracks. Based on current design features, 

the structures are not expected to be 

affected and no relocations are planned. 

B. Bridge Site Alternatives Considered 

The Department in this case 

considered two alternative bridge sites 

and three alternative roadway 

alignments. The Department also 

considered a ‘‘no action’’ alternative. 

These are described in detail in the 

Final Environmental Assessment and in 

summary fashion as follows: 

Bridge Site Alternative No. 1 is 

located approximately 4.6 miles 

upstream of the existing Fabens-Caseta 

Bridge. This alternative was viewed as 

not preferred because the site lacks 

direct access to Caseta, Mexico and 

would require extensive acquisition of 

agricultural and private underdeveloped 

lands for right-of-way in the Fabens 

area. The site also presents traffic safety 

hazards and would require construction 

of a new diamond interchange at IH–10, 

an ineffective use of financial resources. 

Bridge Site Alternative No. 2 is 4.3 

miles upstream of the existing bridge. 

While the roadway alignment for this 

bridge could use the existing diamond 

interchange at IH–10, the lack of direct 

access to the Interstate is a negative 

factor. 

No Action Alternative. The 

Department considers the ‘‘no action’’

alternative for the roadway, described 

below, to constitute a ‘‘no action’’

alternative for the bridge as well. The 

‘‘no action’’ alternative for the bridge 

was viewed as not preferred for the 

same reasons provided with regard to 

the ‘‘no action’’ alternative for the 

roadway. 

C. Roadway Alternatives Considered 

Roadway Alternative B was designed 

to originate at the Tornillo-Guadalupe 

New International Bridge and border 

facilities and direct passenger and 

commercial vehicular traffic west and 

north on the existing Texas Farm to 

Market 76 (FM 76) alignment to its 

intersection with Texas Highway 20 (SH 

20) in Fabens, Texas. The alignment 

would continue north on Texas Farm to 

Market 793 (FM 793) through the 

Fabens business district to its 

intersection with Interstate Highway 10 

(I–10).

The Roadway Alternative B alignment 

was eliminated early in the project, and 

was viewed as not preferred, because it 

was not considered to be a feasible and 

prudent option due to taking of 

additional acreage of potential prime or 

unique farmlands, relocation of families 

and splitting family/caregiver support 

76824 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2004 / Notices 

groups, relocation and/or disruption of 

commercial businesses and trade, 

disruption of community services, 

relocation and disruption of places of 

religious worship or meetings, and 

general public opposition. 

Roadway Alternative C was designed 

to originate at the Tornillo-Guadalupe 

New International Bridge and border 

facilities and divert vehicular traffic 

north on the proposed Preferred 

Alternate route to its intersection with 

Texas State Highway 20 (SH 20) west of 

the town of Tornillo, Texas. The 

alignment would traverse on an easterly 

route along SH 20 through Tornillo to 

its intersection with Texas Farm to 

Market 3380 (FM 3380) and thence 

north on FM 3380 to the diamond 

interchange at Interstate Highway 10 (I–

10). 

Roadway Alternative C was not 

selected as the preferred route due to 

the taking of additional acreage of 

potentially prime or unique farmlands, 

relocation of families and splitting 

family/caregiver support groups, 

relocation and/or disruption of 

commercial businesses and trade, 

disruption of community services, 

relocation and disruption of places of 

religious worship or meetings, and 

relocation of a public recreational area. 

Roadway Alternative D was designed 

to originate at the Tornillo-Guadalupe 

New International Bridge and border 

facilities and divert vehicular traffic 

north on the proposed Preferred 

Alternate route to a point approximately 

0.6 miles north of its intersection with 

State Highway 20 (SH 20) west of 

Tornillo, Texas. The alignment would 

traverse on a northerly route through the 

dune lands to its intersection with 

Interstate Highway 10 (I–10). 

Roadway Alternative D was not 

selected as the preferred alternative 

because the alignment would require 

the construction of approximately 1.8 

miles of roadway through the upland 

desert area. This would require the 

taking of 43.62 acres of land for rightof-way acquisition. The current land use 

is considered as idle. The project would 

require the construction of a diamond 

interchange at the roadway intersection 

with I–10. The new diamond 

interchange would be located 

approximately 1.95 miles northwest of 

the existing I–10 and FM 3380 diamond 

interchange. The short distance between 

diamond interchanges could create 

congestion in this portion of the I–10 

corridor and traffic safety hazards. 

Additionally, the burden of cost related 

to the interchange at I–10 is not 

considered to be the most effective use 

of available financial resources. 

Roadway Alternative E—No Action. If 

no action were taken, the long and 

short-term affects on natural and 

wildlife resources, other sensitive areas 

(with the potential exception of ground 

water resources), the environment, land 

uses, and human inconveniences would 

be minimal or negligible. Without the 

project, the potential for economic 

development and enhancement of 

lifestyles of the local inhabitants would 

be adversely affected in this federally 

designated economically distressed 

area. Potential for new commercial or 

industrial growth would be stagnant or 

nonexistent due to the lack of a modern 

border facility and a safer, more direct 

route to the major transportation 

corridors. 

The No Action Alternative was 

viewed as not preferred because it 

would impede the benefits to the United 

States derived from trade expansion 

with Mexico, overtax the existing 

international crossings closer to the El 

Paso/Ciudad Juarez urban core, and 

leave in place the obsolete existing 

Fabens Bridge. 

III. Summary of the Assessment of the 

Potential Environmental Impacts 

Resulting From the Proposed Action 

The Environmental Assessment 

provides information on the 

environmental effects of the alternatives 

outlined above, including the proposed 

project. On the basis of the Final 

Environmental Assessment, the 

Department makes the following 

determinations regarding the potential 

environmental impacts of the preferred 

alternatives for the bridge site and the 

roadway alignment. 

Ground Water and Runoff 

Recharge of the Rio Grande Alluvium 

aquifer is through storm water runoff, 

seepage from the river and irrigation 

water returns. The transfer of 

groundwater between the Rio Grande 

and the aquifer is seasonal and 

dependent on the river’s flow. During 

the spring and summer irrigation 

season, the aquifer gains at the expense 

of the river’s flow and volume. The 

opposite occurs during the nonirrigation seasons of fall and winter. The 

project should not have any long-term 

effects on the inter-basin transfer of 

groundwater.

As noted, the County intends to 

acquire 271.75 acres for the border 

facilities and related activities. While 

the project will be developed and 

constructed in stages, ultimately it will 

cover about 171 acres of land with 

impervious surfaces. According to the 

initial storm water runoff retention 

basin design plan, about 29 acres of land 

will be used for retention basins. The 

ongoing design for the major arterial 

roadway also includes the use of 

retention ponds and vegetated swales. 

Based on the design of the retention 

ponds and related factors, storm water 

runoff should have only negligible 

effects on surface water bodies and 

shallow groundwater aquifers. Wherever 

practical, cover other than asphalt or 

concrete will be used to reduce water 

runoff. In order to mitigate runoff and 

erosion during the construction period, 

the County will instruct its consultants 

to employ best management practices 

for erosion control, such as the use of 

hay bales and silt fencing. 

Siltation and Sedimentation of 

Waterways 

Land erosion is expected to be 

minimal and will be controlled through 

implementation of a Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan. It is expected 

that the construction phases of the 

project will take place during the dry 

season to minimize the erosional effects 

of rain. Where applicable, portions of 

the disturbed lands will be restored to 

their pre-construction contours and revegetated with plants and grasses native 

to the area. 

Precautions To Avoid Injury To Cover 

Vegetation 

There are four distinct vegetative 

zones in the project area, ranging from 

a small riparian area to the typical 

Chihuahuan Desert dunes. Precaution 

and avoidance measures should include 

limiting the disturbance of land areas 

and cover vegetation to those within the 

construction zone, including barrow 

pits, rights-of-way and entry and exit 

points for equipment and personnel. As 

appropriate, disturbed areas will be 

reclaimed in accordance with the 

permanent erosion control requirements 

of the storm water discharge permit. 

Disruption of Wildlife Habitat 

The proposed project is not expected 

to disrupt wildlife habitat. However, in 

view of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and the population declines of many 

migratory bird species, good faith efforts 

will be implemented to minimize or 

avoid critical vegetative cover clearing 

and grubbing activities during migratory 

birds’ general nesting season from 

March through August. 

Wetlands and Floodplains 

A review of the National Wetlands 

Inventory Maps for the project area and 

a site reconnaissance indicated no 

wetlands present or identified. Based on 

a review of Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 

it was determined that the bridge 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2004 / Notices 76825

crossing will span Zone A, which is 

described as a special flood hazard area 

inundated by 100 year floods, and in 

which no base flood elevation has been 

established. The border facilities and a 

part of the access road are in Zone X, 

which is described as an area outside 

the 500-year floodplain. 

Air Quality 

The Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality classifies El Paso 

County and region as a non-attainment 

area for critical air pollutants. Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide are among the 

critical pollutants. Based on a 1996 

annual emissions study, it was 

determined that 69 percent of the Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide non-attainment 

annual emissions could be attributed to 

on-road mobile sources. 

While studies since 1996 show that 

the El Paso region has managed to 

achieve substantial reductions in 

emissions, the long lines of northbound 

traffic at the three existing bridges 

exacerbate the non-attainment status in 

these areas. According to Texas 

Department of Transportation data, a 

vehicle emits 2.5 times as many 

pollutants while idling as compared to 

while traveling at 3 miles per hour. 

In a Report to the County 

Commissioners Court prepared in 2001, 

the County Planning Department 

concluded that:

Currently, northbound vehicles on the 

bridge of the Americas, the Paso del Norte 

Bridge, and the Zaragoza (Ysleta) Bridge 

generate the following pollutants daily: 1,877 

pounds of volatile organic compounds, 

18,292 pounds of Carbon Monoxide, and 751 

pounds of nitrous oxide. To arrive at an 

emission estimate, the number of vehicles 

crossing the bridge on a daily and annual 

basis were measured against the waiting time 

in the line, during rush and non-rush hour, 

the idling time spent on the bridge and the 

fuel used by the vehicle.

The proposed project will improve air 

quality in the urbanized areas of El Paso 

by alleviating vehicular congestion at 

the existing ports of entry. Both the 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency reviewed the 

application, including the 

Environmental Assessment, in detail. 

Both concluded that emissions resulting 

from the proposed project are expected 

to be well below the 50 tons per year 

significant level for Volatile Organic 

Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides and 

that a general conformity analysis 

would not be required. Moreover, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

determined that the proposed project is 

outside the non-attainment boundary for 

both PM 10 and CO; therefore, general 

conformity provisions are inapplicable 

for these two pollutants. During the 

construction phase, the County will 

instruct its consultants and contractors 

to employ best management practices, 

such as wetting aggregate to minimize 

dust. 

Listed, Threatened and Endangered 

Species 

The proposed new international 

bridge and associated roadway are not 

expected to disrupt wildlife habitat. The 

project design is not intended to limit or 

prohibit movements of species. An 

endangered species habitat assessment 

conducted in January 2002 concluded 

that, except for habitat for the Texas 

Horned Lizard and the Pecos River 

Muskrat, the project areas did not 

constitute sensitive habitat for 

threatened or endangered species or 

species of concern. There is very little 

potential for significant impacts. The 

sponsor will implement mitigating 

measures even in the absence of a 

potential for significant impacts. 

Mitigation efforts for the Pecos River 

Muskrat will include spans over the 

waterway so as not to cause a fill or 

redirection of the existing waterway 

habitat. A permitted biologist will be on 

call during the construction phase of the 

project in order to mitigate any potential 

impact on the Texas Horned Lizard. 

In addition, the County will instruct 

its construction contractor that any 

burrow pits or staging areas be located 

in previously disturbed sites or sites 

with little or no vegetation and that 

these sites be reviewed for the potential 

occurrences of listed species and their 

habitats. 

Hazardous Waste 

The proposed project is not located on 

or near any known hazardous waste 

facilities and will not generate any 

hazardous wastes. The proposed border 

station will include a hazardous waste 

containment unit in the truck dock area 

that will provide temporary storage of 

hazardous waste if a spill occurs. 

In the event of a release or spill 

outside the border station, assistance for 

containment and remediation efforts 

would fall under the jurisdiction of the 

El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, whose 

Environmental Crimes Unit has special 

emergency procedures that have been 

made available by the U.S. Department 

of Transportation. 

The use of herbicides or defoliating 

agents for this project is not expected. 

In the event such chemical agents are 

used, it will be done in strict accordance 

with the manufacturers’ requirements 

and by persons qualified to conduct the 

applications. 

Land Use 

There are no public parks, 

recreational areas, wilderness areas, or 

unusual or unique areas within or near 

the vicinity of the proposed project. The 

project is not located near or in the 

vicinity of any designated wild and 

scenic river segments of the Rio Grande. 

Part of the proposed project will be on 

farmlands. The crops cultivated include 

pecans, cotton, grain and alfalfa. The 

project will directly and indirectly 

impact approximately 516 acres of 

farmland. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

concluded that the project area does not 

include any soil mapping units that are 

classified as prime farmland under the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act. After 

reviewing and evaluating the farmland 

at issue, the NRCS concluded that the 

project may proceed. 

Noise 

As with any major construction 

undertaking, some impacts will occur 

for which mitigation measures are not 

reasonable or feasible. One such impact 

identified during the course of this 

investigation is related to increased 

traffic noise. The traffic noise study 

conducted as part of the Environmental 

Assessment indicated that exterior noise 

levels at three houses exceeded existing 

levels by 8dBA and approached a 

Category B Noise Abatement Criteria 

level. The study investigated four 

typical and acceptable abatement 

measures and resulted in a finding that 

none was both feasible and reasonable, 

and no abatement measures were 

proposed for the project. Future 

avoidance measures of noise impacts are 

to include land use control programs to 

ensure that no new developments are 

planned or constructed along or within 

the predicted 2024 noise impact 

contours.

Noise abatement measures during the 

construction phase may include work 

hour controls and locations, ground 

support personnel locations and 

maintenance of vehicle muffler systems. 

Cultural Resources 

During the course of the archeological 

survey, four historical sites and one 

engineering property (Fabens-Caseta 

Bridge) were discovered. Two of the 

sites (Tornillo Sites 1 and 4) and the 

engineering property are eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) and/or formal 

designation as State Archeological 

Landmarks (SAL). One site (Tornillo 3) 

did not merit SAL designation and one 

site (Tornillo 2) will require additional 

76826 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2004 / Notices 

studies to determine its significance and 

if it is necessary to avoid the site as a 

mitigation measure. The Texas 

Historical Commission determined that 

Tornillo Sites 1 and 4 were 

archeologically significant and 

recommends that they be avoided, if 

possible. Mitigation measures at these 

sites will be either avoidance or 

redesign of the roadway, or by 

excavation and curation of artifacts. 

Burial of the sites will not be an 

acceptable mitigation measure due to 

the shallow and fragile nature of the 

archeological deposits. 

The existing Fabens-Caseta Bridge 

will be removed upon completion of the 

Tornillo-Guadalupe New International 

Bridge, Border Station Facilities and 

Major Arterial Roadway. The County 

has agreed to fund demolition of the 

U.S. part of the bridge. As 

recommended by the State Historical 

Preservation Officer (SHPO), the 

removal of this bridge will be in 

accordance with the requirements, 

directives, and plans issued by the 

Texas Historic Commission’s Division of 

Architecture. In consultation with the 

SHPO, the IBWC has determined that 

the bridge is eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places. As 

a result, the County and IBWC have 

negotiated a memorandum of 

agreement, currently under review by 

both parties that, among other 

mitigation measures, will require the 

County to document the Fabens-Caseta 

Bridge to Level II, Historic American 

Buildings Survey (HABS) and Historic 

American Engineering Record (HAER) 

Standards, prior to beginning 

demolition. 

The County expects to enter into a 

programmatic agreement relating to 

historical sites with the SHPO and 

appropriate federal coordinators. 

Native American Tribes 

Four federally recognized Native 

American groups were identified that 

may have historical ties to the area. The 

tribes are: (1) Fort Sill Apache Tribe of 

Oklahoma, (2) Mescalero Apache Tribe 

of the Mescalero Reservation of New 

Mexico, (3) White Mountain Apache 

Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, 

Arizona, and (4) the Ysleta Del Sur 

Pueblo of Texas. Each tribe was 

contacted and invited to consult on the 

project. The Mescalero Apache Tribe 

determined that the proposed action 

would not affect any objects, sites, or 

locations important to the Tribe. The 

White Mountain Apache Tribe replied 

that they deferred to the representatives 

of the Mescalero Apache Tribe and Fort 

Sill Apache Tribe. The Fort Sill Apache 

Tribe failed to respond to repeated 

telephone calls and letters. The Ysleta 

Del Sur Pueblo determined that 

consultation would be required and 

requested that they be consulted 

through each phase of the project. 

Environmental Justice/Socio-Economic 

Issues 

A potential impact for which direct 

mitigation measures may not be 

reasonable or feasible in all instances 

involves personal economic issues. The 

construction of the Tornillo-Guadalupe 

New International Bridge will result in 

a toll being charged to offset 

maintenance costs and repayment of 

revenue bonds. The County anticipates 

permanent closure and removal of the 

toll-free Fabens-Caseta Bridge upon 

completion of the new bridge and 

border facilities. The closure and 

removal of the toll-free bridge may 

result in economic impacts to regular 

users of the bridge. The County of El 

Paso recognizes this and, on April 19, 

2004, the County Commissioners Court 

passed a resolution to the effect that the 

Tornillo-Guadalupe Port of Entry would 

be toll free for pedestrians. Private and 

commercial vehicles would pay tolls. 

While the County of El Paso may not 

be able to fully mitigate all such impacts 

directly, the short and long term 

employment and economic 

opportunities resulting from 

implementing the project will greatly 

offset and lessen the effects of the 

impacts. The construction of the bridge, 

border station facilities, and roadway 

should provide short-term employment 

opportunities to local residents and a 

positive economic ripple affect to the 

surrounding area businesses. The longterm employment opportunities for the 

local residents of this economically 

distressed portion of El Paso County are 

promising. The County of El Paso 

anticipates implementing its economic 

development plan and tax abatement 

policies in conjunction with the 

Renewal Community Program. The 

creation of a 2,000-acre industrial park 

is one major feature of the County’s 

economic development plan. The 

industrial park would be developed on 

the north side of the IH 10 

transportation corridor, extending from 

Clint to the Fabens area. The long-range 

plans include planned affordable 

housing residential districts and 

commercial developments. The 

developments would bring 

infrastructure, such as water supply 

lines and sanitary sewer lines, to this 

region of the County. Overall, the 

project would improve the quality of life 

for the local and adjacent area residents. 

The projected economic 

developments potentially are of great 

significance in a County where 30.9 

percent of the population lives below 

the poverty threshold, compared to 18.5 

percent for the State as a whole. The 

County’s unemployment rate in October 

2003 was 8.9 percent, while the national 

average at that time was 6.0 percent and 

Texas’ rate was 6.1 percent.

Cumulative Impacts 

The most significant cumulative 

impacts of the demolition of the FabensCaseta Bridge and the construction of 

the Tornillo-Guadalupe New 

International Bridge will be socioeconomic. 

The construction of the TornilloGuadalupe New International Bridge 

and related roads and infrastructure will 

have positive long- and short-term 

economic impacts. The estimated 

construction costs for the proposed new 

bridge, border facilities, and major 

arterial roadway are $46,544,000. 

Importation of a major labor force is not 

expected, thus allowing local residents 

the opportunity to gain employment, 

develop trade skills, and increase 

personal incomes. 

On a long-term basis the construction 

of new bridges has generally resulted in 

significant regional increases in 

population, tourism, employment, and 

income. The County of El Paso 

anticipates implementing an economic 

development plan that includes 

industrial development areas, 

residential districts, and tax abatement 

policies. The development of a 2,000-

acre industrial park is one major feature 

of the County’s plan. The planned 

industrial park will be located on the 

north side of the Interstate Highway 10, 

extending from Clint, Texas to the 

Fabens, Texas area. Long-range plans 

include affordable housing residential 

districts, green spaces, and commercial 

developments. The employment 

opportunities will include skilled and 

semi-skilled construction labor, 

manufacturing jobs, and retail sales 

staff. Through tax incentives for 

businesses, the unskilled labor force 

will be afforded training opportunities 

resulting in additional job 

opportunities. 

The Tornillo-Guadalupe New 

International Bridge will be in a lowincome area. The traffic and financial 

feasibility study that is part of the 

Presidential Permit Application found 

that the toll revenues supporting the 

financial feasibility of the new bridge 

would come from automobile and truck 

traffic, with commercial vehicles 

generating 79 percent of the tolls. 

Pedestrian traffic will produce little or 

no net revenues. In order to 

accommodate the pedestrian crossers in 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2004 / Notices 76827

this low-income area and promote social 

justice, the El Paso County 

Commissioners Court passed a 

resolution dated April 19, 2004 that 

eliminates pedestrian tolls on the new 

bridge. The resolution states: ‘‘Therefore 

Be It Resolved, by El Paso County 

Government that the new Tornillo/

Guadalupe Port of Entry will be toll-free 

for pedestrians only, as expenditure of 

future funds to collect tolls from 

pedestrians at the new Tornillo/

Guadalupe Bridge is expected to exceed 

pedestrian toll revenues to be 

collected.’’

IV. Conclusion: Analysis of the 

Environmental Assessment Submitted 

by the Sponsor 

Based on the Department’s 

independent review of the Final 

Environmental Assessment, comments 

received during its preparation and 

comments received by the Department 

from Federal and State agencies 

including measures which are proposed 

to be taken to prevent or mitigate 

potentially adverse environmental 

impacts, the Department has concluded 

that issuance of a Presidential Permit 

authorizing construction of the 

proposed Tornillo-Guadalupe New 

International Bridge as proposed in 

Bridge Site Alternative No. 3 as set forth 

in the Environmental Assessment, 

would not have a significant impact on 

the quality of the human and/or natural 

environment within the United States. 

Accordingly, a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (‘‘FONSI’’) is adopted and an 

environmental impact statement will 

not be prepared. 

The Final Environmental Assessment 

prepared by the Department addressing 

this action is on file and may be 

reviewed by interested parties at the 

Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., 

Room 4258, Washington, DC 20520 

(Attn: Mr. John Ritchie, Tel (202) 647–

8529).

Dated: December 15, 2004. 

John A. Ritchie, 

Coordinator, U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs, 

Office of Mexican Affairs, Department of 

State.

[FR Doc. 04–27988 Filed 12–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–29–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Trade Policy Staff Committee; Initiation 

of Environmental Review of U.S.-Oman 

Free Trade Negotiations; Public 

Comments on Scope of Environmental 

Review

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This publication gives notice 

that, pursuant to the Trade Act of 2002, 

and consistent with Executive Order 

13141 (64 FR 63169) (Nov. 18, 1999) 

and its implementing guidelines (65 FR 

79442), the Office of the United States 

Trade Representative (USTR), through 

the Trade Policy Staff Committee 

(TPSC), is initiating an environmental 

review of the proposed United StatesOman Free Trade Agreement. The TPSC 

is requesting written comments from the 

public on what should be included in 

the scope of the environmental review, 

including the potential environmental 

effects that might flow from the free 

trade agreement and the potential 

implications for U.S. environmental 

laws and regulations, and identification 

of complementarities between trade and 

environmental objectives such as the 

promotion of sustainable development. 

The TPSC also welcomes public views 

on appropriate methodologies and 

sources of data for conducting the 

review. Persons submitting written 

comments should provide as much 

detail as possible on the degree to which 

the subject matter they propose for 

inclusion in the review may raise 

significant environmental issues in the 

context of the negotiation.

DATES: Public comments should be 

received no later than February 25, 

2005.

ADDRESSES: Submissions by electronic 

mail: FR0510@ustr.gov. Submissions by 

facsimile: Gloria Blue, Executive 

Secretary, Trade Policy Staff Committee, 

at (202) 395–6143.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

procedural questions concerning public 

comments, contact Gloria Blue, 

Executive Secretary, TPSC, Office of the 

USTR, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20508, telephone (202) 395–3475. 

Questions concerning the 

environmental review should be 

addressed to Jennifer Prescott or David 

J. Brooks, Environment and Natural 

Resources Section, USTR, telephone 

(202) 395–7320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Background Information 

On November 15, 2004, in accordance 

with section 2104(a)(1) of the Trade Act 

of 2002, the United States Trade 

Representative, Ambassador Robert B. 

Zoellick, notified Congress of the 

President’s intent to enter into trade 

negotiations with Oman. Ambassador 

Zoellick outlined specific U.S. 

objectives for these negotiations in the 

notification letters to Congress. Copies 

of the letters are available at http://

www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/

Press_Releases/2004/November/U.S._

Announces_Intent_to_Negotiate_FTAs_

with_UAE_Oman.html. 

In addition to this request for public 

comments, the TPSC also has invited 

the public to provide written comments 

and/or oral testimony at a public 

hearing that will take place on January 

14, 2005. The purpose of this hearing is 

to assist USTR in amplifying and 

clarifying negotiating objectives for the 

proposed FTA and to provide advice on 

how specific goods and services and 

other matters should be treated under 

the proposed agreement (see 67 FR 

70498, December 6, 2004). USTR will 

take into account in the environmental 

review any public comments or 

testimony on Oman FTA environmental 

issues submitted in response to the 

December 6 notice. 

2. Environmental Review 

USTR, through the TPSC, will 

perform an environmental review of the 

agreement pursuant to the Trade Act of 

2002 and consistent with Executive 

Order 13141 (64 FR 63169) and its 

implementing guidelines (65 FR 79442). 

Environmental reviews are used to 

identify potentially significant, 

reasonably foreseeable environmental 

impacts (both positive and negative), 

and information from the review can 

help facilitate consideration of 

appropriate responses where impacts 

are identified. Reviews address 

potential environmental impacts of the 

proposed agreement and potential 

implications for environmental laws 

and regulations. The focus of the review 

is on impacts in the United States, 

although global and transboundary 

impacts may be considered, where 

appropriate and prudent.

3. Requirements for Submissions 

In order to facilitate prompt 

processing of submissions, USTR 

strongly urges and prefers electronic (email) submissions in response to this 

notice. In the event that an e-mail 

submission is impossible, submissions 

should be made by facsimile. 

Persons making submissions by email should use the following subject