Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices 36371 

Deletions 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

I certify that the following action will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The major factors considered for this 

certification were: 

1. If approved, the action will not 

result in additional reporting, 

recordkeeping or other compliance 

requirements for small entities. 

2. If approved, the action may result 

in authorizing small entities to furnish 

a product and a service to the 

Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory 

alternatives which would accomplish 

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in 

connection with a product and a service 

proposed for deletion from the 

Procurement List. 

End of Certification 

The following product and service are 

proposed for deletion from the 

Procurement List: 

Product 

Paper Holder & Micro Note Holder 

NSN: 7510–01–484–0011 

NPA: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. 

(Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA 

Contracting Activity: Federal Acquisition 

Service, GSA/FSS OFC SUP CTR–Paper 

Products, New York, NY 

Service 

Service Type/Location: Facilities 

Maintenance, NASA Dryden Flight 

Research Center, Edwards, CA 

NPA: PRIDE Industries, Roseville, CA 

Contracting Activity: National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC 

Patricia Briscoe, 

Deputy Director, Business Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–15489 Filed 6–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities Under OMB Review 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice; Information Collection 

3038–0019, Stocks of Grain in Licensed 

Warehouses. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that 

the Information Collection Request (ICR) 

abstracted below has been forwarded to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and comment. The 

ICR describes the nature of the 

information collection and its expected 

costs and burden; it includes the actual 

data collection instruments [if any]. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before July 26, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY

CONTACT: Gary Martinaitis at CFTC, 

(202) 418–5209; FAX: (202) 418–5527; 

e-mail: gmartinaitis@cftc.gov and refer 

to OMB Control No. 3038–0019. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Stocks of Grain in Licensed 

Warehouses, OMB Control No. 3038– 

0019. 

This is a request for extension of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

Abstract: Under Commission 

Regulation 1.44, 17 CFR 1.44, contract 

markets must require operators of 

warehouses regular for delivery to keep 

records on stocks of commodities and 

make reports on call by the 

Commission. The regulation is designed 

to assist the Commission in prevention 

of market manipulation and is 

promulgated pursuant to the 

Commission’s rulemaking authority 

contained in section 5a of the 

Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 7a. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the CFTC’s regulations 

were published on December 30, 1981. 

See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The 

Federal Register notice with a 60-day 

comment period soliciting comments on 

this collection of information was 

published on April 13, 2010 (75 FR 

18824). 

Burden statement: The respondent 

burden for this collection is estimated to 

average 1 hour per response. This 

estimate includes the time needed to 

review instructions; develop, acquire, 

install, and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining information 

and disclosing and providing 

information; adjust the existing ways to 

comply with any previously applicable 

instructions and requirements; train 

personnel to be able to respond to a 

collection of information; and transmit 

or otherwise disclose the information. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: 3. 

Estimated number of responses: 156. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 156 hours. 

Frequency of collection: Weekly. 

Send comments regarding the burden 

estimated or any other aspect of the 

information collection, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

the addresses listed below. Please refer 

to OMB Control No. 3038–0019 in any 

correspondence. 

Gary Martinaitis, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20581 and Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Attention: Desk Office for CFTC, 725 

17th Street, Washington, DC 20503. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 

2010. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–15377 Filed 6–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Addressing Campus Development at 

Fort Meade, MD 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Notice of availability; notice of 

public meeting; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

(DOD) announces the availability of the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) as part of the environmental 

planning process for a Campus 

Development Project at Fort George G. 

Meade, Maryland (hereafter referred to 

as Fort Meade). The DOD proposes the 

development of a portion of Fort Meade 

(referred to as ‘‘Site M’’) as an 

operational complex and to construct 

and operate consolidated facilities to 

meet the National Security Agency’s 

(NSA) continually evolving 

requirements and for Intelligence 

Community use. The purpose of the 

proposed action is to provide facilities 

that are fully-supportive of the 

Intelligence Community’s mission. The 

action is driven by the need to co-locate 

key partnering organizations to ensure 

required capabilities for current and 

future missions are achieved. 

This notice announces a 45-day 

comment period and provides 

information on how to participate in the 

public review process. The public 

comment period for the Draft EIS will 

officially end 45 days after publication 

of U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Notice of Availability in the 

Federal Register. 

DATES: There will be an open house 

beginning at 4:30 p.m. followed by a 

public meeting from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 

July 21, 2010 (see ADDRESSES for 

meeting location). The public meeting 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

36372 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 2010 / Notices 

may end earlier or later than the stated 

time depending on the number of 

persons wishing to speak. All materials 

that are submitted in response to the 

Draft EIS should be received by August 

13, 2010, to provide sufficient time to be 

considered in preparation of the Final 

EIS. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft EIS are 

available for your review at the Fort 

Meade Main Post Library, 4418 

Llewellyn Avenue, Fort Meade, MD 

20755. You may also call (301) 688– 

2970 or send an e-mail to 

CampusEIS@hdrinc.com to request a 

copy of the Draft EIS. 

The open house and scoping meeting 

will be held at the Fort Meade Middle 

School, 1103 26th Street, Fort Meade, 

Maryland 20755. Oral and written 

comments will be accepted at the 

scoping meeting. You can also submit 

written comments to ‘‘Campus 

Development EIS’’ c/o HDR|e2M, 2751 

Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, 

VA 22031 or submitted by e-mail to 

CampusEIS@hdrinc.com. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeffrey Williams at (301) 688–2970, or email jdwill2@nsa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The NSA is a tenant 

DOD agency on Fort Meade. NSA is a 

high-technology organization that is on 

the frontier of communications and data 

processing. In order to meet evolving 

mission requirements, the development 

of a modern operational complex is 

needed at the NSA campus on Fort 

Meade. 

Proposed Action and Alternatives: 

The Campus Development Project was 

initiated to provide a modern 

operational complex to meet the 

evolving mission requirements of NSA 

and the Intelligence Community. 

Development is proposed for a portion 

of Fort Meade (referred to as ‘‘Site M’’) 

adjacent to the NSA campus. Site M is 

divided into northern (Site M–1, 137 

acres) and southern (Site M–2, 90 acres) 

portions. DOD proposes that 

development of Site M occur in three 

option phases over a horizon of 

approximately 20 years. 

• Proposed Action (Phase I). 

Development would occur in the near 

term (approximately 2012 to 2014) on 

the eastern half of Site M–1, supporting 

1.8 million square feet (ft2) of facilities 

for NSA to consolidate mission 

elements, enabling services, and support 

services across the campus based on 

function; servicing the need for more 

collaborative environment and optimal 

adjacencies, including associated 

infrastructure (e.g., electrical substation 

and generator plants providing 50 

megawatts of electricity) and 

administrative functions for up to 6,500 

personnel. This phase would also 

include a steam and chilled water plant, 

water storage tower, and electrical 

substations and generator facilities 

capable of supporting the entire 

operational complex on Site M. 

• Alternative 1 (Phases I and II). 

Alternative 1 would include the 

implementation of the Proposed Action 

(Phase I) along with Phase II. Phase II 

would occur in the mid-term 

(approximately 2020) on the western 

half of Site M–1, supporting 1.2 million 

ft2 of administrative facilities. 

• Alternative 2 (Phases I, II, and III). 

Alternative 2 would include the 

implementation of the Proposed Action 

(Phase I) along with Phases II and III. 

Development would occur on Site M–2 

in the long term (approximately 2029), 

supporting an additional 2.8 million ft2

of administrative facilities, bringing 

built space to 5.8 million ft2 for up to 

11,000 personnel. 

Alternatives identified include each 

of the development phases identified 

above, as well as three options for 

redundant emergency backup power 

generation and various pollution control 

systems. The No Action Alternative (not 

undertaking the Campus Development 

Project) will also be analyzed in detail. 

Summary of Environmental Impacts: 

The level of potential environmental 

impacts resulting from the Proposed 

Action and alternatives would primarily 

be dependent on the alternative 

ultimately selected. Environmental 

impacts would generally be more 

adverse for Alternatives 1 and 2 than for 

the Proposed Action due to the increase 

in building footprint and the number of 

additional personnel associated with the 

alternatives. 

Generally, construction and 

demolition activities would be expected 

to result in some amount of ground 

disturbance. Short-term adverse on-site 

impacts on soil and water resources as 

a result of sedimentation, erosion, and 

storm water runoff are unavoidable. 

Construction and demolition activities 

also generate solid waste. These kinds of 

impacts would be expected regardless of 

the alternative chosen. Long-term 

operation of the complex would be 

expected to result in negligible to 

moderate impacts on land use, 

transportation, noise, air quality, 

biological resources, infrastructure, 

hazardous materials and waste, and 

socioeconomic resources. Potential 

significant impacts on cultural resources 

could occur under Alternative 2 if 

potentially historic properties are not 

treated as a design constraint and 

avoided. 

Best Management Practices and 

Mitigation Measures. The Proposed 

Action has the potential to result in 

adverse environmental impacts. The 

Proposed Action includes best 

management practices, mitigation 

measures, and design concepts to avoid 

adverse impacts to the extent 

practicable. Unavoidable impacts would 

be minimized or compensated for, to the 

extent practicable. In accordance with 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations, mitigation measures must 

be considered for adverse 

environmental impacts. Once a 

particular impact associated with a 

proposed action is considered 

significant, then mitigation measures 

must be developed where it is feasible 

to do so. 

Copies of the Draft EIS are available 

for public review at local repositories 

and by request (see ADDRESSES). The 

DOD invites public and agency input on 

the Draft EIS. Please submit comments 

and materials during the 45-day public 

review period to allow sufficient time 

for consideration in development of the 

Final EIS (see DATES). 

Dated: June 22, 2010. 

Mitchell S. Bryman, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2010–15457 Filed 6–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Advisory Panel on Department of 

Defense Capabilities for Support of 

Civil Authorities After Certain Incidents 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense 

and America’s Security Affairs), DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of multiple meetings by 

audio teleconference. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 

1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), 

the Government in the Sunshine Act of 

1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 

41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of 

Defense announces that the Advisory 

Panel on Department of Defense 

Capabilities for Support of Civil 

Authorities after Certain Incidents 

(hereinafter referred to as the Advisory 

Panel) will take place by audio 

teleconference on July 7, 8, 9, and 12, 

2010. 

DATES: The meetings will be held: 

Wednesday, July 7, 2010, from 11:00 

a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time 

(hereinafter referred to as EDT). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES