22536 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices

safety and the environment, comply

with an international treaty, and carry

out the mandate of the Congress. Nonstockpile chemical warfare materiel

covered under this FPEIS includes: (1)

Munitions containing chemical warfare

agent or industrial chemicals, (2)

chemical warfare agents or industrial

chemicals contained in other than

munitions configurations, and (3)

chemical agent identification set items

containing small qualities of pure or

diluted agent used for training purposes.

These items are currently buried and

have the potential to be recovered at a

number of locations in the United States

and its territories and possessions. In

addition, materiel has been recovered

and is currently stored at several

military installations throughout the

United States.

DATES: Written public comments

received within 30 days of the

publication of the Environmental

Protection Agency’s Notice of

Availability will be considered by the

Army during final decision making.

ADDRESSES: Questions on the FPEIS or

requests for copies of the document

should be directed to: Program Manager

for Chemical Demilitarization, ATTN:

SFAE–CD–NP (Mr. John K. Gieseking/

PEIS), Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland 21010–4005 or via e-mail at

john.gieseking@pmcd.apgea.army.mil.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John Gieseking at (410) 436–3768 or by

fax at (410) 436–8737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Army

has to decide whether it wants to

complete development of transportable

treatment systems and make the systems

available for deployment in the field.

The purpose of the FPEIS is to help the

Army make this program-level decision

with input from the public. The Army’s

Product Manager for Non-Stockpile

Chemical Materiel has analyzed the

potential environmental and

socioeconomic consequences of two

alternative courses of action in the

FPEIS with respect to the Army’s

chemical demilitarization

responsibilities. These alternatives are:

(1) Completing development and testing

of the transportable chemical treatment

systems and making them available to

be used where needed and appropriate

to process non-stockpile chemical

warfare materiel. Part of this alternative

includes continuing to assess and

evaluate the treatment potential of other

technologies, methods, and processes,

and (2) the no-action alternative, under

which the Army would discontinue the

development of the transportable

treatment systems and continue to the

storage of non-stockpile chemical

warfare materiel until other suitable

technologies are developed.

The Army’s preferred alternative

based on information in this FPEIS is to

complete development of transportable

chemical treatment systems and make

them available for deployment.

Subsequent environmental reviews by

the appropriate DoD authorities would

address the impacts of actual

deployment to specific locations before

a decision to deploy would be made.

While the no-action alternative was

evaluated, it could lead to the United

States violating the Chemical Weapons

Convention timetable requirements for

destroying currently stored nonstockpile chemical warfare materiel.

A series of public meetings were held

at nine locations during the public

comment period on the Draft PEIS to

afford the public the opportunity to

provide oral and written comments.

These meetings were held in

Alexandria, Louisiana; Anchorage,

Alaska; Edgewood, Maryland;

Huntsville, Alabama; Indianapolis,

Indiana; Salt Lake City, Utah; San

Antonio, Texas; Santa Rosa, California;

and Tampa, Florida. Comments made at

these meetings and written comments

received during the comment period

were used in preparing the FPEIS.

The most frequent concern expressed

in public comments was in regard to the

possible treatment of secondary wastes

from the transportable systems in

commercial incinerators. The Army is

presently looking into possible options

other than commercial incineration for

treating wastes from the transportable

systems. Implementing the preferred

alternative does not preclude

developing these non-incineration

options.

Copies of the FPEIS can be obtained

by calling the Public Outreach and

Information Office of the Office of the

Program Manager for Chemical

Demilitarization at 1–800–488–0648 or

(410) 436–3445; fax (410) 436–8737; or

e-mail at

john.gieseking@pmcd.apgea.army.mil.

The FPEIS may be accessed at the

following web site: http://wwwpmcd.apgea.army.mil/nscmp/

index.html.

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Raymond J. Fatz,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Environment, Safety and Occupational

Health), OASA(I&E).

[FR Doc. 01–11293 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for the Final

Environmental Impact Statement for

Shock Trial of WINSTON S.

CHURCHILL (DDG 81)

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

(Navy), pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of

the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.;

the regulations implementing NEPA

issued by the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ), 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500–1508;

Navy regulations implementing NEPA

procedures (31 CFR 775); and Executive

Order 12114, ‘‘Environmental Effects

Abroad of Major Federal Actions’’;

hereby announces its selection of the

area of the Atlantic Ocean offshore of

Mayport Naval Station, Jacksonville,

Florida for the WINSTON S.

CHURCHILL shock trial. NEPA sets out

the procedures Federal agencies must

follow in analyzing environmental

impacts of major Federal actions within

U.S. territory. Executive Order 12114

sets out the procedures Federal agencies

must follow in analyzing environmental

impacts of major Federal actions

occurring outside U.S. territory in the

global commons or within the territory

of another nation. The Navy was the

lead agency and the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) was a

cooperating agency for the

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The WINSTON S. CHURCHILL will

be shock tested in a manner consistent

with the alternative ‘‘Shock Trial At An

Offshore Location,’’ described in the

Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS) as the proposed action. The FEIS

analyzed in detail three alternative

offshore areas—Mayport, Florida;

Norfolk, Virginia; and Pascagoula,

Mississippi. The WINSTON S.

CHURCHILL will be subjected to a

series of up to four 10,000-pound

explosive charge detonations sometime

between May 1, 2001 and September 30,

2001, conducted at a rate of one per

week to allow time to perform detailed

inspections of the ship’s systems.

The preferred alternative is to conduct

a shock trial offshore of Mayport with

mitigation to minimize risk to marine

mammals and turtles. Although all three

test areas meet minimum operational

requirements, the Norfolk and Mayport

test areas rank higher operationally,

whereas the Pascagoula test area is

significantly less suitable for supporting

the shock trial. Environmentally, the

risk of impacts to marine mammals and

turtles is higher in the Norfolk test area,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices 22537

and is lower, and about equal, at

Mayport and Pascagoula. Therefore,

considering all other aspects of the three

candidate test areas to be about the

same, conducting the shock trial at

Mayport would meet the project

purpose and need, satisfy operational

requirements, and minimize

environmental impacts. This Record of

Decision leaves the selection of a single

primary and two secondary test sites

within the Mayport test area to be made

based on aerial surveys of marine

mammals and turtles done one to two

days prior to the first detonation. This

will ensure that the final test site

selected for the shock trial poses the

least possible risk to the marine

environment.

Background

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG 81)

is the third ship in a new flight of 23

ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51) class guided

missile destroyers referred to as the

Flight IIA ships. Each new class of ship

or major upgrade must be tested to

assess the survivability of the hull and

the ship’s systems and the capability of

the ship to protect the crew after a near

miss from an underwater explosion.

Section 2366 of title 10, United States

Code (10 USC 2366) requires realistic

survivability testing of a covered

weapon system to ensure the

vulnerability of that system under

combat conditions is known. Realistic

survivability testing means testing for

the vulnerability of the ship in combat

by firing munitions likely to be

encountered in combat with the ship

configured for combat, commonly

referred to as ‘‘Live Fire Test and

Evaluation’’ (LFT&E). The Flight IIA

destroyer is a covered system because it

is a major weapon system upgrade and

the Navy established an approved

LFT&E program to complete the

vulnerability assessment of Flight IIA

ships as required by 10 USC 2366. The

LFT&E program includes three major

areas that together provide for a

complete and comprehensive evaluation

of the survivability of Flight IIA ships in

a near miss, underwater explosion

environment. These areas are computer

modeling and analysis, component

testing, and an at-sea ship shock trial.

Computer modeling and component

tests provide valuable information

regarding the survivability of the ship.

However, only the at-sea shock trial

would provide the real-time data

necessary to fully assess ship

survivability. A shock trial is a series of

underwater detonations that propagate a

shock wave through the ship’s hull

under deliberate and controlled

conditions. A shock trial assesses a

ship’s survivability and vulnerability in

combat situations by simulating near

misses from underwater explosions. The

Navy can then measure the effect of the

shock wave on the hull, equipment, and

personal safety features. This

information is used to improve the

shock resistance of the ship and followon ships of the class, thereby reducing

the risk of crew injury.

Alternatives

NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a

reasonable range of alternatives for

implementing a proposed Federal

action. The alternatives evaluated in the

FEIS were no-action and conducting a

shock trial at one of three potential

offshore locations. Alternative offshore

areas for shock testing were compared

from operational and environmental

perspectives. A preferred alternative

was identified based on these

comparisons.

Under the ‘‘no action’’ alternative

only the computer modeling and

component testing already completed

under the LFT&E would be used to

evaluate survivability. The no action

alternative was determined to not be a

reasonable alternative because it would

not provide the information and data

necessary to assess the survivability of

the ship as required by 10 USC 2366.

Therefore the ‘‘no action’’ alternative

was not included in the comparative

analysis of alternatives.

The EIS analysis focused on

alternative offshore locations for a shock

trial. The WINSTON S. CHURCHILL

will be homeported on the East coast.

Therefore, based on PERSTEMPO (Navy

personnel tempo regulations requiring a

ship to spend a day in homeport for

every day away from homeport for crew

quality of life and efficiency)

considerations, offshore areas other than

the East and Gulf coasts were eliminated

from consideration. The Navy screened

possible East Coast and Gulf of Mexico

shock testing areas according to the

following operational criteria:

PERSTEMPO; proximity to a Naval

Station with homeported ships;

proximity to a Naval Air Station or other

military airbase for aircraft and

helicopters; proximity to a Naval Station

support facility; proximity to a ship

repair facility; proximity to an ordnance

loading station; ship traffic; and weather

and sea state. A detailed analysis

concluded that three test areas could

operationally support the shock trial—

Mayport, Florida; Norfolk, Virginia; and

Pascagoula, Mississippi. Operationally,

the Norfolk and Mayport test areas rank

higher and are about equal, whereas the

Pascagoula test area ranks lower and is

significantly less suitable for supporting

the shock trial.

Potential environmental impacts of

conducting a shock trial at the Mayport,

Norfolk, and Pascagoula test areas were

analyzed in the Environmental

Consequences section of the FEIS. Most

environmental impacts of the shock trial

would be similar at Mayport, Norfolk, or

Pascagoula. However, the three areas

differ significantly with respect to

potential impacts on marine mammals

and sea turtles. Overall, based on the

best available scientific data, the risk of

mortality and injury to marine mammals

and turtles would be higher at Norfolk

and lower, and about equal, at Mayport

and Pascagoula. Considering all

components of the physical, biological,

and socioeconomic environment,

potential impacts would be less at

Mayport or Pascagoula than at Norfolk.

Environmental Impacts

Potential environmental impacts of

conducting a shock trial at the Mayport,

Norfolk, and Pascagoula test areas are

analyzed in the FEIS. The analysis

demonstrated that most environmental

impacts of the shock trial would be less

than significant and were similar at

Mayport, Norfolk, or Pascagoula.

However, the three areas differ with

respect to potential significant impacts

on marine mammals and sea turtles.

Potentially significant direct impacts

on marine mammals include mortality,

injury, and disruption of hearing-based

behaviors. Most marine mammals

would be detected during predetonation aerial surveys, surface

observations, and passive acoustic

monitoring, minimizing the risk of

death or injury. Application of

mitigation measures would further

reduce risk by allowing selection of a

test site with low densities of marine

mammals within each of the three test

areas. Even with these mitigation

measures, there are differences in risk

levels among the three test areas due to

differences in area-wide marine

mammal densities and species

composition. Overall, the risk to marine

mammals would be higher at Norfolk

and lower and about equal at Mayport

and Pascagoula.

Potential impacts to sea turtles also

include mortality, injury, and

disruption of hearing-based behaviors.

At Mayport, Norfolk, or Pascagoula,

mitigation methods would result in

selection of a test site with low densities

of sea turtles. However, there are

differences in risk among the three areas

due to differences in sea turtle densities.

Overall, the results indicate that the risk

to turtles would be higher at Norfolk

22538 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices

and lower but about equal at Mayport

and Pascagoula.

Considering all components of the

physical, biological, and socioeconomic

environment, potential impacts would

be less at Mayport or Pascagoula than at

Norfolk.

Mitigation

A detailed Marine Mammal and Sea

Turtle Protection/Mitigation Plan is

presented in the FEIS. The plan

includes the same type of mitigation

and monitoring efforts that were used

successfully during the shock trial of

USS JOHN PAUL JONES in 1994 off the

coast the southern California where

marine mammal population densities

are significantly greater than at the

Mayport, Norfolk, or Pascagoula test

areas. No deaths or injuries of marine

mammals were detected during the USS

JOHN PAUL JONES shock trial. The

mitigation plan for the shock trial would

avoid impacts and minimize risk to

marine mammals and sea turtles in

three ways:

Site selection. Initial, general site

selection would be based on operational

requirements and surveys. Within the

test area selected for the shock trial,

aerial surveys would be conducted and

satellite imagery would be analyzed to

select a small test site having low

densities of marine mammals and

turtles.

Pre-detonation monitoring. Prior to

each detonation, aerial and shipboard

observers would search for marine

mammals and turtles at the selected test

site. Passive acoustic surveys would

also be used to detect marine mammal

calls. If any marine mammal or sea

turtle were detected within the Safety

Range (a 2 nm radius around the

detonation point), testing would be

postponed. Testing would also be

postponed if large.

Sargassum rafts, debris lines, or

jellyfish concentrations (indicators that

turtles may be present) were detected in

the Safety Range, or if flocks of seabirds

or large fish schools were detected

within 1 nm of the detonation point.

Postponement would also occur in

certain circumstances when a marine

mammal or turtle is detected in a Buffer

Zone extending from 2 to 3 nm from the

detonation point. Detonation would not

occur until monitoring indicated that

the Safety Range is clear of detectable

marine mammals, sea turtles, large

Sargassum rafts and debris lines, and

large concentrations of jellyfish.

Post-detonation monitoring. After the

explosion, aerial and shipboard

observers would survey the test site. A

Marine Animal Recovery Team led by a

marine mammal veterinarian would

document and attempt to recover any

dead animals and monitor any animals

that appear to be injured. If the survey

showed that marine mammals or turtles

were killed or injured or if any marine

mammals or turtles are detected in the

Safety Range immediately following a

detonation, testing would be halted

until procedures for subsequent

detonations could be reviewed and

changed as necessary. Communications

with stranding network personnel

would be maintained throughout the

shock trial period.

Coordination and Consultation with the

NMFS

Because the NMFS has jurisdiction by

law with respect to issues related to

endangered species and marine

mammals, the NMFS acted as a

cooperating agency on the EIS. In

addition to a review and comment role,

the NMFS had two regulatory roles

relative to the proposed shock trail.

First, the NMF is responsible for

administering the Endangered Species

Act as it applies to listed sea turtles and

marine mammals. The DEIS served as

the Biological Assessment which the

Navy submitted to the NMFS,

requesting formal consultation under

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

(ESA), (16 USC 1531 et seq.). The NMFS

subsequently issued a Biological

Opinion, dated October 10, 2000, which

completed the consultation process

under ESA. The NMFS also has a

regulatory role under the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16

USC 1361 et seq.) When the DEIS was

published, the Navy submitted a

separate application to the NMFS for an

‘‘incidental take authorization’’ under

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. The

NMFS published a Proposed Rule in the

Federal Register on December 12, 2000

(65 FR 77546). The Proposed Rule

specified mitigation, monitoring, and

reporting requirements for the shock

trial. A Final Rule must be issued by

NMFS before the shock trial can

proceed.

Comments Received on the FEIS

After the FEIS was distributed to the

public for a 30-day review period

ending on March 26, 2001, the Navy

received one comment letter.

Environmental Protection Agency

commented that with properly executed

mitigation as discussed in the EIS, that

Mayport represents the best compromise

among the three testing locations.

Conclusion

Shock testing the WINSTON S.

CHURCHILL in an area offshore of

Mayport, Florida is the alternative that

best meets the project purpose and

need, satisfies operational criteria, and

minimizes environmental impacts.

Potentially significant direct impacts

resulting from the test include mortality,

injury, and acoustic harassment of

marine mammals and sea turtles. While

numbers have been calculated to define

the potential lethal, injurious, and

harassment take that might occur, it is

expected that the mitigation and

monitoring program will minimize the

risk to marine mammals and sea turtles.

The ‘‘No Action’’ alternative would

avoid all environmental impacts of a

shock trial and is the environmentally

preferred alternative. It does not,

however, support the development of

the best assessment of the survivability

characteristics of the ship.

Dated: April 27, 2001.

Paul A. Schneider,

Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Research,

Development and Acquisition) (Acting).

[FR Doc. 01–11270 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Proposed Information

Collection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory

Information Management Group, Office

of the Chief Information Officer, invites

comments on the proposed information

collection requests as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on or before July 3,

2001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires

that the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) provide interested

Federal agencies and the public an early

opportunity to comment on information

collection requests. OMB may amend or

waive the requirement for public

consultation to the extent that public

participation in the approval process

would defeat the purpose of the

information collection, violate State or

Federal law, or substantially interfere

with any agency’s ability to perform its

statutory obligations. The Leader,

Regulatory Information Management

Group, Office of the Chief Information

Officer, publishes that notice containing

proposed information collection

requests prior to submission of these

requests to OMB. Each proposed

information collection, grouped by

office, contains the following: (1) Type

of review requested, e.g. new, revision,