29312 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices 

be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/ 

Information Management Division, 1777 

North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, 

Arlington, VA 22209–2133. 

Dated: May 18, 2007. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 07–2593 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Air Force 

[No. USAF–2007–0006] 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

ACTION: Notice. 

The Department of Defense has 

submitted to OMB for clearance, the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by June 25, 2007. 

Title, Form, and OMB Number: Air 

Force Academy Request for Secondary 

School Transcript, USAFA Form 148; 

OMB Control Number 0701–0066. 

Type of Request: Extension. 

Number of Respondents: 7,954. 

Responses Per Respondent: 1. 

Annual Responses: 7,954. 

Average Burden Per Response: 30 

minutes for candidate/15 minutes for 

counselor. 

Annual Burden Hours: 5,966. 

Needs and Uses: The collection of 

information is necessary to obtain data 

on candidate’s background and aptitude 

in determining eligibility and selection 

to the Air Force Academy. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

Obtain or Retain Benefits. 

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Hillary Jaffe. 

Written comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

information collection should be sent to 

Ms. Jaffe at the Office of Management 

and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 

10236, New Executive Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20503. 

You may also submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by the following method: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name, docket 

number and title for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia 

Toppings. 

Written requests for copies of the 

information collection proposal should 

be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/ 

Information Management Division, 1777 

North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, 

Arlington, VA 22209–2133. 

Dated: May 18, 2007. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 07–2594 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army; Corps of 

Engineers 

Intent To Prepare a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for a 

New Borrow Area for the Martin 

County Beach Erosion Control Project 

Located in Martin County, FL 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Jacksonville District, intends 

to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for a new borrow area 

for the Martin County Beach Erosion 

Control Project. In cooperation with 

Martin County, the study will evaluate 

alternative sand sources that will 

maximize shore protection while 

minimizing environmental impacts. 

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Planning Division, 

Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 4970, 

Jacksonville, FL 32232–0019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Paul M. DeMarco, by e-mail 

Paul.M.DeMarco@saj02.usace.army.mil 

or by telephone at (904) 232–1897. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

a. Proposed Action. The Martin 

County, FL, Beach Erosion Control 

project was authorized by the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1990 

passed November 28, 1990 (Pub. L. 101–

640) in accordance with the report of 

the Chief of Engineers dated November 

20, 1989. The final Environmental 

Impact Statement was filed with the 

Environmental Protection Agency in 

1986. Prior to construction, General 

Design Memorandum (GDM) dated June 

1994 was prepared. The project was 

authorized for 50 years from date of 

initial construction in 1996. The 

authorized plan consisted of restoration 

of 4 miles of shorefront southward from 

the St. Lucie County line to near the 

limit of Stuart Public Park (R1–R25). 

The previously approved borrow area 

has been depleted. The DEIS will 

evaluate various sources of beach 

quality sand, the impacts from removal 

of this sand on the environment and 

coastal processes, and the impacts from 

nourishing the beach with this sand. 

Subsequently a final EIS will be 

published. 

b. Alternatives. Specific proposed 

alternatives at this time include 

hydraulic dredging of beach quality 

sand from offshore shoals, truck-haul 

beach fill from upland sources, and noaction. 

c. Scoping Process. The scoping 

process as outlined by the Council on 

Environmental Quality will be utilized 

to involve Federal, State, and local 

agencies, affected Indian tribes, and 

other interested persons and 

organizations. A scoping letter will be 

sent to the appropriate parties 

requesting their comments and 

concerns. Any persons and 

organizations wishing to participate in 

the scoping process should contact the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Significant issues to be analyzed to 

the DEIS would include effects on 

Federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, Essential Fish 

Habitat with particular concern for 

nearshore hardbottom habitat. Other 

issue would be health and safety, water 

quality, aesthetics and recreation, fish 

and wildlife resources, cultural 

resources, socio-economic resources, 

and any issues identified through 

scoping and public involvement. 

The proposed action would be 

coordinated with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act, with the NMFS concerning 

Essential Fish Habitat, and with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer. 

The proposed action would also 

involve evaluation for compliance with 

guidelines pursuant to Section 404(b) of 

the Clean Water Act; application (to the 

State of Florida) for Water Quality 

Certification pursuant to Section 401 of 

the Clean Water Act; certification of 

state lands, easement, and rights of way; 

and determination of Coastal Zone 

Management Act consistency. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 101 / Friday, May 25, 2007 / Notices 29313 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

and the non-Federal sponsor, Martin 

County, would provide extensive 

information and assistance on the 

resources to be impacted and 

alternatives. 

d. Scoping Meetings: Public scoping 

meetings would be held. Exact dates, 

times, and locations would be published 

in local papers. 

e. Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement Availability: The Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement would 

be available on or about October 2007. 

Dated: May 19, 2007. 

Stuart J. Appelbaum, 

Chief, Planning Division. 

[FR Doc. 07–2580 Filed 5–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–AS–M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–6687–3] 

Environmental Impact Statements and 

Regulations; Availability of EPA 

Comments 

Availability of EPA comments 

prepared pursuant to the Environmental 

Review Process (ERP), under section 

309 of the Clean Air Act and section 

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act as amended. Requests for 

copies of EPA comments can be directed 

to the Office of Federal Activities at 

202–564–7167. An explanation of the 

ratings assigned to draft environmental 

impact statements (EISs) was published 

in FR dated April 6, 2007 (72 FR 17156). 

Draft EISs 

EIS No. 20060507, ERP No. D–FHW–

J40175–UT, South Logan to 

Providence Transportation Corridor 

Project, Improvements to 100 East 

Street between 300 South (Logan) to 

Providence Lane (100 North) in 

Providence, Funding and Right-ofWay Grant, Cities of Logan and 

Providence, Cache County, UT. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about impacts 

to wetlands, floodplains, and air 

impacts related to PM 2.5. EPA is also 

concerned about cumulative impacts. 

Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20070053, ERP No. D–AFS–

L65533–ID, Sun Valley Resort (Bald 

Mountain) 2005 Master Plan—Phase I 

Project, Implementation, Special-UsePermits, Sawtooth National Forest, 

Blaine County, ID. 

Summary: EPA raised environmental 

concerns with the impacts to water 

quality, erosion, and changes stream 

flows. Also, the final EIS should address 

cumulative impacts associated with 

future development and expanded 

snowmaking operations. 

Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20070071, ERP No. D–USA–

D11041–VA, Fort Belvoir 2005 Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

Recommendations and Related Army 

Actions, Implementation, Fairfax 

County, VA. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about natural 

resources impacts. EPA requested 

additional information on the locations 

of forest removal and habitat loss. 

Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20070077, ERP No. D–AFS–

J65376–SD, Mitchell Project Area, To 

Implement Multiple Resource 

Management Actions, Mystic Ranger 

District, Black Hills National Forest, 

Pennington County, SD. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about human 

health exposure to pollutants from 

smoke and impacts to air quality, and 

impacts from road construction to water 

quality. 

Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20070105, ERP No. D–USA–

D15001–MD, Fort George G. Meade 

Base Realignment and Closure 2005 

and Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) 

Actions, Implementation, Anne 

Arundel, Howard, Montgomery, 

Prince George’s Counties, MD. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about the 

natural resources impacts. EPA 

requested additional information on 

upland habitat, wetlands, surface water, 

and wildlife. EPA also recommends that 

the cumulative impact discussion be 

expanded to include water and wetland 

resources. 

Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20070111, ERP No. D–HUD–

L85028–WA, Westpark 

Redevelopment Master Plan, 

Redevelop of 82-acre Site to create a 

Mixed-Use, Mixed-Income Pedestrian 

Oriented Urban Community, Funding 

and US Army COE Section 10 Permit, 

City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, 

WA. 

Summary: EPA utilized a screening 

tool to conduct a limited review of the 

EIS and, based on the screen, we do not 

foresee having any environmental 

objections to the proposed project. 

Rating LO. 

EIS No. 20070114, ERP No. D–USA–

G15001–NM, Cannon Air Force Base 

(AFB), Proposal to Beddown, or 

Locate Air Force Special Operations 

Command (AFSOC), Implementation, 

Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC), NM. 

Summary: EPA had no objections to 

the proposed action. 

Rating LO. 

EIS No. 20070124, ERP No. D–FHW–

C40169–NY, NY–112 Reconstruction 

Project, From I–495 to NY–25 

Improve Safety and Mobility, Town of 

Brookhaven, Suffolk County, NY. 

Summary: EPA has no objections to 

the proposed project. 

Rating LO. 

EIS No. 20070079, ERP No. DS–AFS–

L65509–WA, School Fire Salvage 

Recovery Project, To Clarify 

Definitions of Live and Dead Trees, 

Implementation, Pomeroy Ranger 

District, Umatilla National Forest, 

Columbia and Garfield Counties, WA. 

Summary: While EPA has no 

objections to the proposed action, EPA 

did recommend that the Forest Service 

monitor the survival of fire-damaged 

trees across the project area (both inside 

and outside of sale units) using the 

result to validate and calibrate the Scott 

Guidelines. 

Rating LO. 

EIS No. 20070113, ERP No. DS–TVA–

E06008–TN, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 

Unit 2, Completion and Operation, 

Updated Information on Extensive 

Environmental Record, Rhea County, 

TN. 

Summary: EPA expressed concern 

about radioactive waste disposition after 

2008 and the proposed Dry Cask storage 

plans. EPA requested the radiological 

monitoring of all plant effluents along 

with appropriate storage and disposition 

of radioactive waste. 

Rating EC1. 

Final EISs 

EIS No. 20070101, ERP No. F–FHW–

F40430–IN, US–31 Kokomo Corridor 

Project, Preferred Alternative is J, 

Transportation Improvement between 

IN–26 and U.S. 35 Northern Junction, 

City of Kokomo and Center Township, 

Howard and Tipton Counties, IN. 

Summary: EPA continues to express 

concern that adequate mitigation is not 

being proposed. EIS No. 20070117, ERP 

No. F–AFS–D65036–PA, Allegheny 

National Forest, Proposed Revised Land 

and Resource Management Plan, 

Preferred Alternative is Cm, 

Implementation, Elk, Forest, McKean 

and Warren Counties, PA. 

Summary: EPA still has concerns with 

the potential for adverse impacts from 

oil and gas development to water 

quality and wildlife resources. EPA 

encourages the Forest Service to work 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES