80480 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

likelihood that some pinnipeds will 

avoid the area, no injury or mortality to 

pinnipeds is expected or requested. 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

Analysis and Determination 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘ * * * an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

In making a negligible impact 

determination, NMFS considers: 

(1) The number of anticipated 

mortalities; 

(2) The number and nature of 

anticipated injuries; 

(3) The number, nature, and intensity, 

and duration of Level B harassment; and 

(4) The context in which the takes 

occur. 

As mentioned previously, NMFS 

estimates that four species of marine 

mammals could be potentially affected 

by Level B harassment over the course 

of the IHA. For each species, these 

numbers are small (each, less than one 

percent) relative to the population size. 

No takes by Level A harassment, 

serious injury, or mortality are 

anticipated to occur as a result of the 

SGRLPS’ proposed activities, and none 

are authorized. Only short-term 

behavioral disturbance is anticipated to 

occur due to the brief and sporadic 

duration of the proposed activities; the 

availability of alternate areas near 

NWSR for marine mammals to avoid the 

resultant acoustic disturbance; and 

limited access to NWSR during the 

pupping season. Due to the nature, 

degree, and context of the behavioral 

harassment anticipated, the activities 

are not expected to impact rates of 

recruitment or survival. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that the 

SGRLPS’ planned helicopter operations 

and restoration/maintenance activities, 

will result in the incidental take of 

small numbers of marine mammals, by 

Level B harassment only, and that the 

total taking from the helicopter 

operations and restoration/maintenance 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

The Steller sea lion, eastern Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) is listed as 

threatened under the ESA and occurs in 

the planned action area. NMFS 

Headquarters’ Office of Protected 

Resources, Permits, Conservation, and 

Education Division conducted a formal 

section 7 consultation under the ESA 

with the Southwest Region, NMFS. On 

January 27, 2010, the Southwest Region 

issued a BiOp and concluded that the 

issuance of IHAs are likely to adversely 

affect, but not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of Steller sea lions. 

NMFS has designated critical habitat for 

the eastern Distinct Population Segment 

of Steller sea lions in California at An ̃ o 

Nuevo Island, Southeast Farallon Island, 

Sugarloaf Island and Cape Mendocino, 

California pursuant to section 4 of the 

ESA (see 50 CFR 226.202(b)). Northwest 

Seal Rock is neither within nor nearby 

these designated areas. Finally, the 

BiOp included an ITS for Steller sea 

lions. The ITS contains reasonable and 

prudent measures implemented by 

terms and conditions to minimize the 

effects of this take. 

NMFS has reviewed the 2010 BiOp 

and determined that there is no new 

information regarding effects to Stellar 

sea lions; the action has not been 

modified in a manner which would 

cause adverse effects not previously 

evaluated; there has been no new listing 

of species or designation of critical 

habitat that could be affected by the 

action; and, the action will not exceed 

the extent or amount of incidental take 

authorized in the 2010–2012 ITS. 

Therefore, the proposed IHA does not 

require the reinitiation of Section 7 

consultation under the ESA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

To meet NMFS’ NEPA requirements 

for the issuance of an IHA to the 

SGRLPS, NMFS prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 2010 

that was specific to conducting aircraft 

operations and restoration and 

maintenance work on the St. George 

Reef Light Station. The EA, titled 

‘‘Issuance of an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization to Take Marine Mammals 

by Harassment Incidental to Conducting 

Aircraft Operations, Lighthouse 

Restoration and Maintenance Activities 

on St. George Reef Lighthouse Station in 

Del Norte County, California,’’ evaluated 

the impacts on the human environment 

of NMFS’ authorization of incidental 

Level B harassment resulting from the 

specified activity in the specified 

geographic region. At that time, NMFS 

concluded that issuance of an IHA 

November 1 through April 30, annually 

would not significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment and 

issued a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) for the 2010 EA 

regarding the SGRLPS’ activities. In 

conjunction with the SGRLPS’ 2011 

application, NMFS has again reviewed 

the 2010 EA and determined that there 

are no new direct, indirect or 

cumulative impacts to the human and 

natural environment associated with the 

IHA requiring evaluation in a 

supplemental EA and NMFS, therefore, 

intends to reaffirm the 2010 FONSI. A 

copy of the EA and the FONSI for this 

activity is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Dated: December 16, 2010. 

Helen M. Golde, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32164 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Notice of Availability of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) for Disposal and Reuse of Fort 

McPherson, GA 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability (NOA). 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army 

announces the availability of the FEIS, 

which evaluates the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

the disposal and reuse of Fort 

McPherson, Georgia. 

DATES: The waiting period for the FEIS 

will end 30 days after publication of an 

NOA in the Federal Register by the U. 

S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

ADDRESSES: To obtain a copy of the FEIS 

contact Mr. Larry Gissentanna, 

McPherson BRAC Environmental 

Coordinator, 1508 Hood Ave., Building 

714, Fort Gillem, GA 30297 or 

larry.gissentanna@us.army.mil. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Larry Gissentanna at (404) 469–3559. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FEIS 

covers activities associated with the 

disposal and reuse of Fort McPherson, 

Georgia. In accordance with the 2005 

Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80481 

Commission Report, the Army is 

required to close Fort McPherson and 

relocate certain tenant organizations to 

Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina; 

Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina; 

Fort Eustis, Virginia; and Fort Sam 

Houston, Texas. The tenant relocation 

actions were the subject of separate 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analyses. After tenants are 

relocated and all non-caretaking 

operations have ceased on the 

installation, the Army will close Fort 

McPherson. Closure is required no later 

than 15 September 2011. 

Following closure, the property 

(approximately 487 acres) will be excess 

to Army needs. Accordingly, the Army 

proposes to dispose of its real property 

interests at Fort McPherson. The DoD 

and the Army have recognized the 

McPherson Planning Local 

Redevelopment Agency (MPLRA) as the 

local reuse authority for reuse planning 

associated with Fort McPherson. The 

MPLRA developed the Fort McPherson 

Reuse Plan, which is pending 

notification from the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

required under the BRAC Act and the 

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.). 

The plan is available electronically at 

http:// 

www.mcphersonredevelopment.com/. 

On 9 September 2009, Governor Purdue 

authorized the establishment of the 

McPherson Implementing Local 

Redevelopment Authority, which will 

be responsible for overseeing the 

implementation of the Reuse Plan. 

Four alternatives were analyzed in the 

FEIS: (1) A No Action Alternative, 

under which the Army would continue 

operations at Fort McPherson at levels 

similar to those occurring prior to the 

BRAC Commission’s recommendation 

for closure; (2) an Early Transfer 

Alternative, under which transfer and 

reuse of the property would occur 

before environmental remedial actions 

have been completed (but consistent 

with protection of human health and the 

environment); (3) a Traditional Disposal 

Alternative, under which transfer and 

reuse of the property would occur once 

environmental remediation is complete 

for individual parcels of the installation; 

and (4) a Caretaker Status Alternative, 

which begins following the closure of 

the installation in the event that the 

Army is unable to dispose of the 

property, after which time the 

maintenance of the property would be 

reduced to minimal activities necessary 

to ensure security, health, and safety, 

and to avoid physical deterioration of 

facilities. Alternative 2 (Early Transfer) 

is the Army’s preferred alternative, 

which would make the property 

available for reuse sooner than under 

the traditional disposal alternative. 

Three reuse scenarios, based on 

medium, medium-high, and high 

intensity levels of reuse are also 

evaluated as secondary actions of 

disposal of Fort McPherson. These reuse 

scenarios encompass the level of reuse 

expected under the Reuse Plan, which 

is considered the medium-high intensity 

reuse scenario. 

For early transfer and traditional 

disposal alternatives, moderate adverse 

effects would be expected to occur to 

aesthetics and visual resources, noise, 

water resources, biological resources, 

cultural resources (to include the 

historic district at Fort McPherson), 

transportation, and utilities. Reuses 

analyzed in the EIS could result in 

significant adverse effects in the areas of 

land use, air quality, and transportation. 

Disposal of the property for reuse in 

accordance with the Reuse Plan would 

mitigate to less than significant the 

direct and cumulative impacts of 

disposal and reuse. 

A Record of Decision stating which 

alternative the Army has selected will 

not be issued earlier than 30 days after 

this notice. 

An electronic version of the FEIS can 

be viewed or downloaded from the 

following Web site: http:// 

www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/brac/ 

nepa_eis_docs.htm. 

Dated: December 13, 2010. 

Hershell E. Wolfe, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Environment, Safety and Occupational 

Health). 

[FR Doc. 2010–32174 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Advisory Commission on Accessible 

Instructional Materials in 

Postsecondary Education for Students 

with Disabilities 

AGENCY: U. S. Department of Education, 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Advisory 

Commission on Accessible Instructional 

Materials in Postsecondary Education 

for Students with Disabilities. 

ACTION: Notice of an Open Meeting via 

Conference Call. 

SUMMARY: The notice sets forth the 

schedule and agenda of the meeting of 

the Advisory Commission on Accessible 

Instructional Materials in Postsecondary 

Education for Students with Disabilities. 

The notice also describes the functions 

of the Commission. Notice of the 

meeting is required by section 10 (a) (2) 

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

and is intended to notify the public of 

its opportunity to attend. 

DATES: January 7, 2011. 

TIME: 11 a.m.–5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The Commission will meet 

via conference call on January 7, 2011. 

The Executive Director of the 

Commission will serve as the ‘‘host’’ of 

the meeting and will initiate the 

teleconference meeting at approximately 

10:45 a.m. EST on January 7, 2011. The 

Dial-In number for members of the 

public for the call is 1–800–860–2442 or 

1–412–858–4600 for individuals calling 

in from outside of the United States. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Shook, Program Specialist, 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, United States 

Department of Education, 550 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202; 

telephone: (202) 245–7642, fax: 202– 

245–7638. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Advisory Commission on Accessible 

Instructional Materials in Postsecondary 

Education for Students with Disabilities 

(the Commission) is established under 

Section 772 of the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act, Public Law 110–315, 

dated August 14, 2008. The Commission 

is established to (a) conduct a 

comprehensive study, which will—(I) 

assess the barriers and systemic issues 

that may affect, and technical solutions 

available that may improve, the timely 

delivery and quality of accessible 

instructional materials for 

postsecondary students with print 

disabilities, as well as the effective use 

of such materials by faculty and staff; 

and (II) make recommendations related 

to the development of a comprehensive 

approach to improve the opportunities 

for postsecondary students with print 

disabilities to access instructional 

materials in specialized formats in a 

time frame comparable to the 

availability of instructional materials for 

postsecondary nondisabled students. 

In making recommendations for the 

study, the Commission shall consider— 

(I) how students with print disabilities 

may obtain instructional materials in 

accessible formats within a time frame 

comparable to the availability of 

instructional materials for nondisabled 

students; and to the maximum extent 

practicable, at costs comparable to the 

costs of such materials for nondisabled 

students; (II) the feasibility and 

technical parameters of establishing 

standardized electronic file formats, 

such as the National Instructional 

Materials Accessibility Standard as 

defined in Section 674(e)(3) of the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES