Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Notices 1609 

or in responses included in Appendix 

B–4 of the FEIS. If there were topics or 

conclusions contained in the DEIS that 

were not commented on at that time, it 

was concluded that they were 

acceptable to the DEIS reviewers. The 

FEIS explained that different methods 

were used in the resource agency and 

Navy surveys and analyses and 

included the resource agency reports in 

their entirety for interested readers. The 

FEIS summarized the marine habitat 

impacts prepared by the resource 

agencies and their resulting HEA 

estimates of lost ecological services (i.e., 

acre-year losses). The resource agencies 

involved in the marine assessment and 

impact analysis that formed the basis for 

the HEA lost ecological services 

estimate included both Federal (NOAA 

Fisheries, USFWS) and GOVGUAM 

agencies (GDOAG, GEPA). The Navy has 

committed to funding or implementing 

compensatory mitigation to fully offset 

the levels of ecological services 

calculated by the resource agencies. 

Therefore, the Navy considers the level 

of information and analysis in the FEIS 

sufficient and that a supplemental EIS is 

unwarranted. 

The Navy agreed to fund/implement 

compensatory mitigation to offset lost 

ecological services (i.e., a service-toservice approach to scaling, rather than 

a valuation approach), commensurate 

with the HEA prepared by the resource 

agencies. The Van Beukering et al. 

(2007) study results cited in the FEIS 

have not been factored into 

compensatory mitigation scaling for the 

Kilo Wharf extension project, but were 

included in the EIS to illustrate that 

there are multiple approaches to 

estimating economic impacts of 

resource losses. 

The Navy’s completed Guam Coastal 

Management Program (GCMP) 

Assessment (FEIS Appendix P) 

evaluated the coastal zone consistency 

of wharf extension alternatives and the 

preferred and contingency mitigation 

plans. BSP’s concurrence letter (5 

September 2007) does not exclude any 

specific aspects of the Navy’s 

determination or establish any 

preconditions for its concurrence. 

Orote Island, a recognized habitat for 

migratory birds, is too far away and 

sheltered by Orote Point to be impacted 

significantly by existing and proposed 

activities at Kilo Wharf. Accordingly, 

the assessment of Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act-protected species in the FEIS is 

sufficient and additional information on 

the status of resident migratory birds at 

Orote Island is not warranted. 

Requests for ciguatera testing were 

made by GEPA in response to the DEIS. 

The Navy responded at that time 

(response in FEIS Appendix B–4 to 

DEIS comment T.4.7), the link between 

the incidence of reported cases of 

ciguatera and the occurrence of ‘‘new’’

surfaces underwater (as occurs with 

construction) has not been 

demonstrated, thus the need for such a 

monitoring program is not warranted. 

Furthermore, commercially available 

ciguatera test kits yield numerous false 

positives and could lead to a very 

inaccurate picture of conditions in a 

given area and whether there were 

increases in ciguatera incidence with 

the construction of the wharf. 

The FEIS (Sections 3.3.3, 4.3.2.1) 

notes that marine mammals are 

uncommon in Apra Harbor, including 

the Kilo Wharf vicinity. Because of this, 

the FEIS concludes that there is little 

potential for adverse construction noise 

impacts on these species (Sec. 4.3.2.1). 

Therefore, there is little potential for 

‘‘taking’’ of marine mammals protected 

under the MMPA. 

The FEIS includes sufficient 

information to analyze potential impacts 

to sea turtles (e.g., description of new 

security floodlighting illumination 

power, general location of new lighting, 

site plan of the wharf extension and 

new access road). As described in both 

the DEIS and FEIS, there is no evidence 

in literature or from field survey that sea 

turtles have nested at the beaches at 

either end of Kilo Wharf, both recently 

and at the time of the original wharf 

construction. FEIS Sec. 4.3.3.1 describes 

potential construction period impacts 

on threatened and endangered species 

as well as BMPs that will be 

implemented during the construction 

period, which address both noise/light 

impacts and fuel spills. FEIS Section 

4.3.3.2 concludes that none of the 

alternatives would impact threatened, 

endangered or protected marine species 

during the operational period, and that 

the operational and security lighting on 

the wharf will be at a lower illumination 

level than what is currently used on the 

wharf. There is little potential for wakes 

from T–AKE ships entering Apra Harbor 

to impact turtle nesting beaches since 

ships preparing to berth at Kilo Wharf 

enter the harbor at much slower speeds 

than ships heading for the commercial 

port or Inner Apra Harbor. The FEIS 

also notes that NOAA Fisheries 

concurred with Navy’s informal Section 

7 consultation determination that effects 

on sea turtles would be insignificant 

and never reach the scale where take 

occurs. 

The Navy follows much stricter 

ballast water and hull cleaning 

procedures than most, if not all, the 

commercial and private vessels that use 

Apra Harbor. Since ships would berth in 

Apra Harbor and at Kilo Wharf with or 

without the project, the proposed wharf 

extension would have no effect on 

marine introductions related to hull 

fouling, and thus, was not specifically 

addressed in the FEIS. 

Because the project does not have the 

potential to significantly affect Guam’s 

water resources, a comprehensive 

discussion of Guam’s water resources 

history is not warranted in the EIS. 

Summary: In determining how to 

provide adequate berthing for the T–

AKE class of ammunition ship at AHNC, 

Guam, Mariana Islands, I considered 

impacts to the following areas: physical 

environment, land and water use, the 

social and economic environment, 

infrastructure and services, cultural 

resources, hazardous and regulated 

materials and waste, and biological 

resources. I have taken into 

consideration the Navy’s consultation 

with the NOAA Fisheries regarding 

endangered species and EFH, and the 

Guam SHPO regarding cultural 

resources. I have considered the 

comments sent to the Navy by Federal 

and Territorial resource agencies, other 

Federal and Territorial government 

agencies, and the public. I have 

considered the preferred and 

contingency mitigation projects. After 

carefully weighing all of these factors, I 

have determined that the West 

Extension Alternative, extension of Kilo 

Wharf by 400 ft (122 m) to the west, will 

best meet the needs of the Navy while 

also minimizing the environmental 

impacts associated with providing 

suitable facilities on Guam to 

accommodate the new class of ship. 

Dated: December 20, 2007. 

BJ Penn, 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations 

and Environment). 

[FR Doc. E8–103 Filed 1–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management invites 

comments on the submission for OMB 

review as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before February 

8, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
1610 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2008 / Notices 

Attention: Education Desk Officer, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Room 10222, 

Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are 

encouraged to submit responses 

electronically by e-mail to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or via fax 

to (202) 395–6974. Commenters should 

include the following subject line in 

their response ‘‘Comment: [insert OMB 

number], [insert abbreviated collection 

name, e.g., ‘‘Upward Bound 

Evaluation’’]. Persons submitting 

comments electronically should not 

submit paper copies. 

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 IC Clearance 

Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, 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, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of 

the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

Dated: January 4, 2008. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Type of Review: Revision. 

Title: Common Core of Data Survey 

System. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 56. 

Burden Hours: 4,816. 

Abstract: The Common Core of Data 

(CCD) is the National Center for 

Education Statistics’ universe data 

collection for finance and nonfinance 

information about public school 

districts and schools. Information is 

collected annually from school districts 

about the districts and their member 

schools including enrollment by grade, 

race/ethnicity, and gender. Information 

is also collected about students 

receiving various types of services such 

as English Language Learner services. 

The CCD also collects information about 

the occurrence of high school dropouts. 

Information about teachers and staffing 

is also collected. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 3519. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20202–4700. Requests 

may also be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202–

245–6623. Please specify the complete 

title of the information collection when 

making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339. 

[FR Doc. E8–200 Filed 1–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

State Energy Advisory Board 

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Open Teleconference. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

teleconference of the State Energy 

Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public 

notice of these teleconferences be 

announced in the Federal Register. 

DATES: January 16, 2008 from 2 p.m. to 

3 p.m. EDT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Burch, STEAB Designated Federal 

Officer, Acting Assistant Manager, 

Office of Commercialization and Project 

Management, Golden Field Office, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1617 Cole 

Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401, 

Telephone 303/275–4801. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Board: To make 

recommendations to the Assistant 

Secretary for the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

regarding goals and objectives, 

programmatic and administrative 

policies, and to otherwise carry out the 

Board’s responsibilities as designated in 

the State Energy Efficiency Programs 

Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–

440). 

Tentative Agenda: Update members 

on routine business matters. 

Public Participation: The 

teleconference is open to the public. 

Written statements may be filed with 

the Board either before or after the 

meeting. Members of the public who 

wish to make oral statements pertaining 

to agenda items should contact Gary 

Burch at the address or telephone 

number listed above. Requests to make 

oral comments must be received five 

days prior to the conference call; 

reasonable provision will be made to 

include requested topic(s) on the 

agenda. The Chair of the Board is 

empowered to conduct the call in a 

fashion that will facilitate the orderly 

conduct of business. This notice is being 

published less than 15 days before the 

date of the meeting due to programmatic 

issues. 

Notes: The notes of the teleconference will 

be available for public review and copying 

within 60 days on the STEAB Web site, 

http://www.steab.org. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on January 3, 

2008. 

Rachel Samuel, 

Deputy Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–147 Filed 1–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #2 

January 2, 2008. 

Take notice that the Commission has 

received the following Natural Gas 

Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: 

Docket Numbers: RP95–408–069. 

Applicants: Columbia Gas 

Transmission Corporation. 

Description: Columbia Gas 

Transmission Corp submits First 

Revised Eighty-fourth Revised Sheet 25 

et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES