55824 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Notices 

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: September 22, 2008. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Type of Review: New Collection. 

Title: Mapping the Adopted Core 

Curriculum in the Mid Atlantic Region. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 1,496. 

Burden Hours: 748. 

Abstract: It is important to identify 

adopted LEA curricula in language arts/ 

literacy, mathematics and science to 

map the landscape of the Mid-Atlantic 

region and to inform policy and practice 

data-driven decision-making. After 

collecting information from interviews 

with key LEA staff from each REL MidAtlantic district, the lab will produce a 

foundational database from which to 

analyze trends and strategically develop 

appropriate research and evaluation 

agendas. A descriptive report 

summarizing the adopted K–12 

curricula in the region and a userfriendly on-line interface will also be 

developed. 

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 3768. 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., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to 202–401–0920. 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. E8–22640 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Amended Record of Decision for the 

Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use 

Plan Environmental Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Amended record of decision. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) is amending its Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Hanford 

Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement (HCP– 

EIS) (DOE/EIS–0222; September 1999), 

which evaluated the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

implementing a comprehensive landuse plan (CLUP) for the Hanford Site 

near Richland, Washington. The CLUP 

consists of four key elements: (i) A landuse map that addresses the Hanford Site 

as five geographic areas and shows the 

planned future uses for each area, (ii) a 

set of nine land-use designations that 

define the permissible activities for each 

use, (iii) land-use planning policies, and 

(iv) implementing procedures that apply 

to the review and approval of future 

land uses. These elements were 

developed to ensure consistency in 

land-use decisionmaking and 

application of DOE institutional 

controls to the Site. The ROD (64 FR 

61615; November 12, 1999) adopted the 

CLUP for at least the next 50 years. 

In amending the 1999 ROD, DOE 

seeks to clarify two points: that when 

considering land-use proposals, DOE 

will use regulatory processes in addition 

to the implementing procedures in 

Chapter 6 of the HCP–EIS to ensure 

consistency with CLUP land-use 

designations, and that DOE will 

continue to apply the process under 

HCP–EIS Chapter 6 to modify or amend 

the CLUP, as needed. 

The CLUP will remain in effect as 

long as DOE retains legal control of 

some portion of the Hanford Site, which 

is expected to be longer than 50 years. 

As a ‘‘living document,’’ the CLUP is 

intended to be flexible enough to 

accommodate changes, both anticipated 

and unforeseen, in missions and 

conditions. The HCP–EIS recommends 

reassessment of the CLUP every 5 years 

through a Supplement Analysis process 

under the DOE National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing 

Procedures (10 CFR 1021.314). 

ADDRESSES: The documents referenced 

herein are available from: Center for 

Environmental Management 

Information, P.O. Box 23769, 

Washington, DC 20026–3769, 

Telephone: 800–736–3282 (in 

Washington, DC: 202–863–5084). 

The 1999 HCP–EIS and ROD are 

available, and the Supplement Analysis 

and this amended ROD will be 

available, at http://www.gc.energy.gov/ 

NEPA/ under ‘‘DOE NEPA Documents.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For further information on the 

Supplement Analysis for the HCP–EIS, 

contact: Mr. Woody Russell, NEPA 

Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of River Protection, MS 

H6–60 P.O. Box 450, Richland, WA 

99352, Telephone: 509–373–5227. 

For information on DOE’s NEPA 

process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, 

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 

Compliance (GC–20), U.S. Department 

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0103, 

Telephone: 202–586–4600, or leave a 

message at 800–472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DOE published a Notice of Intent 

(NOI) (57 FR 37959; August 21, 1992) to 

prepare the Hanford Remedial Action 

EIS and identified as an EIS objective 

the establishment of future land uses at 

the Hanford Site near Richland, 

Washington. After public scoping, DOE 

issued an Implementation Plan (DOE/ 

RL–93–66, June 1995) to document the 

recommendations of the Federal, state, 

and local agencies, Native American 

Tribes, and interested individuals and 

organizations, many of whom had been 

working with DOE to identify future use 

options for the Site. 

In response to new directives (DOE 

Order 430.1A, Life-Cycle Asset 

Management, and National Defense 

Authorization Act for FY97, 42 U.S.C. 

7274k, redesignated 50 U.S.C. 2582), 

DOE revised the scope of the EIS to 

prepare a comprehensive land-use plan 

for the Site. Seven cooperating agencies 

(Federal and local agencies) and two 

consulting Tribal governments 

developed alternatives analyzed in the 

EIS and helped develop the CLUP. In 

September 1996, DOE issued the Draft 

Hanford Remedial Action EIS and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Notices 55825 

Comprehensive Land-Use Plan (61 FR 

47739) and received extensive 

comments. To address this input, DOE 

issued a second, revised draft (64 FR 

19983; April 23, 1999). 

DOE considered comments received 

on the revised draft, and in September 

1999 issued a final EIS, Hanford 

Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement (HCP– 

EIS), with a new title that reflected the 

change in scope from remedial action to 

land-use planning. The ROD (64 FR 

61615; November 12, 1999) adopted 

DOE’s Preferred Alternative as the 

CLUP, with the HCP–EIS Chapter 6 

process as the governing processes to 

ensure consistent implementation of the 

CLUP. 

II. Other Regulatory Processes at 

Hanford 

Since 1999, the Hanford Site’s 

primary mission has been 

environmental cleanup, using the TriParty Agreement (TPA) negotiated 

among the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Washington 

State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 

and DOE as the framework for 

implementing the requirements of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

and the State of Washington Hazardous 

Waste Management Act (HWMA). Other 

important requirements are integrated 

into this cleanup decisionmaking 

process, including NEPA values and the 

substantive provisions of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

The TPA includes requirements for 

soliciting input from other agencies, 

Tribal governments, and the public 

before the Tri-Party agencies make 

cleanup decisions. Cleanup 

decisionmaking is based on proposed 

uses of land and facilities, risk 

assessments of exposure scenarios that 

include reasonably anticipated future 

land uses, and consideration of other 

legally applicable or relevant and 

appropriate requirements established 

under Federal, state, or local agency 

laws, regulations, and policies. 

III. Supplement Analysis 

A. The Supplement Analysis Evaluation 

To determine whether the existing 

HCP–EIS remains adequate or whether a 

new or supplemental EIS is needed, 

DOE prepared a Supplement Analysis 

under the DOE NEPA regulations (10 

CFR 1021.314). DOE identified 

documents developed from September 

1999 through September 2007 that 

potentially involve land use at the 

Hanford Site. Documents considered in 

this evaluation to support the 

Supplement Analysis include existing 

NEPA, CERCLA/TPA, RCRA/HWMA, 

and NHPA documents; DOE Orders, 

policies, and guidelines; DOE real estate 

licenses, permits, easements, deed 

notices; laws, regulations, Executive 

Orders; and cultural/historical 

documents. DOE solicited input from 

Tribal Nations and interested 

stakeholders to identify additional 

relevant documents to be evaluated. 

After identifying candidate decision 

documents with land-use involvement, 

current actions, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions, DOE evaluated 

these for consistency with the CLUP. In 

a few cases, the analyses were still 

under development and a draft 

document was not yet available to 

determine whether the CLUP would be 

affected. In other cases, analysis in a 

draft document provides sufficient 

information to determine whether land 

use is involved, even though the 

document and associated decision had 

not been finalized; DOE included these 

as reasonably foreseeable actions in the 

Supplement Analysis. DOE’s next 

Supplement Analysis is expected to 

reflect any such final documents and 

decisions as needed and appropriate, 

consistent with the HCP–EIS Chapter 6 

process and DOE’s NEPA regulations. 

Though not required under the DOE 

NEPA regulations, DOE issued the draft 

Supplement Analysis on March 24, 

2008, for a 30-day public review period. 

The principal comments received, from 

area Tribes and stakeholders, were that 

DOE should live up to commitments in 

resource management plans it issues 

and should implement CLUP land-use 

values in the cleanup process. DOE 

addressed the comments in the final 

Supplement Analysis and considered all 

comments in issuing this Amended 

ROD. 

B. Results of the Supplement Analysis 

In reviewing the implementation of 

area and resource management plans for 

maintaining appropriate environmental 

controls and mitigation, DOE identified 

changes from the plans as established by 

the CLUP (HCP–EIS, Table 6–4). For 

example, DOE found that in a few cases 

the scope of a management plan is being 

covered by other management plans. 

Two resource management plans 

originally identified in the HCP–EIS 

have not been prepared, and two 

others—one for Gable Mountain/Gable 

Butte (finalized and issued) and the 

other for Rattlesnake Mountain (still 

under development)—are tiered from 

the Hanford Cultural Resources 

Management Plan. A draft Cultural and 

Biological Resources Management Plan 

was developed for areas of the Hanford 

Site now being managed by DOE’s 

Pacific Northwest Site Office and issued 

for public comment, but has not been 

finalized. These deviations from the 

CLUP are minor and have not affected 

the CLUP (including the land-use map, 

designations, and policies). The 

management plans in place today or still 

under development continue to support 

DOE’s efforts to streamline 

environmental planning at Hanford and 

integrate it with the CLUP. DOE found 

that these plans, which have been or 

will be provided to stakeholders, are 

largely being applied consistently at the 

Hanford Site. 

DOE found that other regulatory 

processes followed at the Hanford Site, 

such as RCRA and CERCLA, have been 

used effectively to determine whether 

proposed activities at the Hanford Site 

are consistent with the CLUP. Under the 

TPA framework for cleanup of the 

Hanford Site, the requirements of the 

CERCLA and the RCRA/HWMA 

processes are implemented, including 

opportunities for stakeholder 

participation in decisionmaking. Values 

under the NEPA and State 

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 

processes, cultural considerations under 

the NHPA, and land-use considerations 

such as consistency with the CLUP also 

are integrated into cleanup 

decisionmaking under the TPA 

framework. 

C. Basis of Supplement Analysis 

Determination 

In reaching a determination on the 

need for a new or supplemental EIS for 

the CLUP, DOE has considered the 

documents and other information 

developed since 1999 concerning land 

use at the Hanford Site as evaluated in 

the Supplement Analysis, regulatory 

processes that have been used to 

consider land use and consistency with 

the CLUP, and comments received on 

the draft Supplement Analysis. DOE 

finds that modification of resource 

management plans are minor and 

consistent with the CLUP. Based on the 

Supplement Analysis, DOE has not 

identified significant new circumstances 

or changes relevant to environmental 

concerns that affect the CLUP. 

DOE finds that other regulatory 

processes followed at the Hanford Site 

under the TPA framework, such as 

RCRA and CERCLA, have been used 

effectively to determine whether 

proposed activities at the Hanford Site 

are consistent with the CLUP and 

provide equivalent opportunities for 

agencies, Tribes, and the public to 

participate in decisionmaking. Values 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
55826 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Notices 

under the NEPA and SEPA processes, 

cultural considerations under the 

NHPA, and land-use considerations 

such as consistency with the CLUP are 

considered also in cleanup decisions 

under the TPA framework. This 

Amended ROD clarifies DOE’s finding 

that the use of these other regulatory 

processes is consistent with processes 

established in the HCP–EIS to ensure 

that land-use decisions are consistent 

with the CLUP. 

However, DOE does not believe it is 

appropriate to use these other regulatory 

processes to amend the CLUP (including 

making changes to land-use map, 

designations, and policies). Proposals to 

amend any aspect of the CLUP will 

continue to follow the process outlined 

in Chapter 6 of the HCP–EIS. The 

review process for land-use requests 

that would change or modify the CLUP 

(Figure 5–1 of the Supplement Analysis) 

requires review by the DOE Real Estate 

Officer (REO) and the DOE NEPA 

Compliance Officer. As stated in Section 

6.4 of the final HCP–EIS: 

The REO receives notice (e.g., NEPA 

checklist, SEPA checklist, CERCLA RI/FS 

[Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study] 

review request, CERCLA review request, 

RCRA permit request, etc.) from a proposed 

project or activity and initiates, with the 

NEPA Compliance Officer (NCO), a 

coordinated project review. * * * As an 

initial step in the review process, the REO 

determines whether the project is an 

‘‘Allowable Use,’’ ‘‘Special Use,’’ or 

‘‘Amendment’’ to the CLUP. For projects that 

require Special Use Permits or Plan 

Amendments, the REO obtains comments 

and recommendations from the SPAB [Site 

Planning Advisory Board] on the suitability 

of the proposed ‘‘Use’’ with respect to the 

existing CLUP map, land-use policies, and 

implementing procedures. For CLUP 

Amendments, review includes a final RL 

[Richland Operations Office] Site 

Management Board (SMB) affirmation, or the 

SMB can refer a proposed Plan Amendment 

back to the REO for further review. 

As discussed in the Supplement 

Analysis (Section 5.5), this review 

process may result in additional NEPA 

review. 

IV. Supplement Analysis Determination 

and Amended Decision 

Based on the Supplement Analysis, 

DOE finds no significant new 

circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns and bearing on 

the proposed actions or their impacts as 

described in the HCP–EIS. Therefore, 

DOE has determined that neither a new 

EIS nor a supplement to the existing 

HCP–EIS is needed at this time. 

Based on the Supplement Analysis, 

DOE concludes that using the regulatory 

processes in place at the Hanford Site 

under the framework of the Tri-Party 

Agreement is an acceptable way to 

ensure land use is being implemented 

consistently with the CLUP. DOE will 

continue to follow the provisions of 

section 6.4 of the HCP–EIS for proposed 

amendments to the CLUP. Resource and 

area management plans will continue to 

be developed and implemented with the 

goal of protecting Hanford’s resources, 

maintaining consistency with CLUP 

policies and goals, and honoring 

commitments made in these 

management plans. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

19, 2008. 

James A. Rispoli, 

Assistant Secretary for Environmental 

Management. 

[FR Doc. E8–22676 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 2634–054] 

Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC; 

Notice of Application for Amendment 

of License and Soliciting Comments, 

Motions To Intervene, and Protests 

September 19, 2008. 

Take notice that the following 

application has been filed with the 

Commission and is available for public 

inspection. 

a. Application Type: Amendment to 

Recreation Plan. 

b. Project No.: 2634–054. 

c. Dated Filed: July 14, 2008. 

d. Applicant: Great Lakes Hydro 

America, LLC. 

e. Name of Project: Storage 

Hydroelectric Project. 

f. Location: The project is located on 

the West and South Branch of the 

Penobscot River in Piscataquis and 

Somerset Counties, Maine. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). 

h. Application Contact: Kevin 

Bernier, FERC Compliance Specialist, 

Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, 1024 

Central Street, Millinocket, Maine 

04462, telephone: (207) 723–4341, fax: 

(207) 723–4597. 

i. FERC Contact: Any questions on 

this notice should be addressed to Gina 

Krump at (202) 502–6704, or e-mail 

address: gina.krump@ferc.gov. 

j. Deadline for filing comments and/ 

or motions: October 20, 2008. 

All documents (original and eight 

copies) should be filed with: Kimberly 

D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

k. Description of Request: The 

licensee filed an amendment 

application to remove the requirement 

to provide a boat launch and parking 

area at the Caucomgomoc Lake from the 

approved recreation plan, issued April 

19, 2006. The licensee proposes to 

develop an area at Harrington Lake, 

which would be outside the project 

boundary and not under the 

Commission’s jurisdiction. 

l. Location of the Application: A copy 

of the application is available for 

inspection and reproduction at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room, 

located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 

2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling 

(202) 502–8371. This filing may also be 

viewed on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket 

number excluding the last three digits in 

the docket number field to access the 

document. You may also register online 

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

esubscription.asp to be notified via 

e-mail of new filings and issuances 

related to this or other pending projects. 

For assistance, call 1–866–208–3676 or 

e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, 

for TTY, call (202) 502–8659. A copy is 

also available for inspection and 

reproduction at the address in item (h) 

above. 

m. Individuals desiring to be included 

on the Commission’s e-mailing list 

should so indicate by writing to the 

Secretary of the Commission. 

n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To 

Intervene—Anyone may submit 

comments, a protest, or a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

requirements of Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. 

In determining the appropriate action to 

take, the Commission will consider all 

protests or other comments filed, but 

only those who file a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

Commission’s Rules may become a 

party to the proceeding. Any comments, 

protests, or motions to intervene must 

be received on or before the specified 

comment date for the particular 

application. 

o. Filing and Service of Responsive 

Documents—Any filings must bear in 

all capital letters the title 

‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘PROTEST, or 

‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, as 

applicable, and the Project Number (P– 

6066–031) of the particular application 

to which the filing refers. All documents 

(original and eight copies) should be 

filed with: Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES