68334 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Notices 

PEIS for the proposed growth, 

realignment, and stationing of new and 

existing Army aviation assets. The 

proposed action includes the 

consolidation and reorganization of 

existing aviation units, and the potential 

establishment of one or more Combat 

Aviation Brigades (CABs). The proposed 

action will increase the availability of 

helicopter assets to meet current and 

future national security requirements 

and will allow the Army better to 

organize existing aviation assets to 

promote more effective training and 

force management. The Draft PEIS 

evaluates the environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed action, 

which also includes the construction 

and renovation of garrison facilities, as 

well as additional training needed to 

support the aviation units. Land 

acquisition is not being considered as 

part of this action. 

The Draft PEIS considers the 

following alternatives: Alternative 1— 

Realign and Station Existing Aviation 

Elements of Up to a Full CAB or 

Activate and Station a New CAB at Fort 

Carson, Colorado. Under this 

alternative, the Army either will 

consolidate existing aviation units not 

currently assigned to a CAB into a 

standard CAB structure at Fort Carson 

or activate a new CAB at Fort Carson. 

As part of this alternative, aviation units 

will conduct training on existing land at 

Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS), 

Colorado, in order to maintain training 

proficiency and support integrated 

training with ground units. Land 

acquisition is not being considered as 

part of this action. Alternative 2— 

Realign and Station Existing Aviation 

elements of Up to a Full CAB or Grow, 

Station and Activate a CAB at Joint Base 

Lewis-McChord (JBLM) Washington. 

Under this alternative, the Army either 

will consolidate existing aviation units 

not currently assigned to a CAB into a 

standard CAB structure at JBLM or 

activate a new CAB at JBLM. As part of 

this alternative, aviation units will 

conduct training on existing training 

land at Yakima Training Center (YTC), 

Washington, in order to maintain 

training proficiency and support 

integrated training with ground units. 

Land acquisition is not being considered 

as part of this action. Alternative 3— 

Implement Alternatives 1 and 2 

(preferred alternative). Under this 

alternative, the Army will implement 

both alternatives. Under this alternative, 

the consolidated units forming a CAB 

would be stationed at one installation, 

and the new CAB would be activated 

and stationed at the other installation. 

Fort Carson and JBLM would each gain 

up to one CAB. As part of this 

alternative, aviation units would 

conduct training on existing training 

land at the installation’s training 

maneuver area (PCMS for Fort Carson 

and YTC for JBLM) in order to maintain 

training proficiency and support 

integrated training with ground units. 

Alternative 4—No Action Alternative. 

Under this alternative, the Army would 

retain its aviation force structure at its 

current levels, configurations, and 

locations. 

Fort Carson and JBLM are the only 

stationing alternatives that meet all of 

the Army’s stationing requirements for 

new CAB stationing. These locations 

have existing runways and airfields, 

provide adequate maneuver and 

airspace for CAB operations, and are 

equipped with existing training ranges 

that can support CAB training. Most 

importantly, Fort Carson and JBLM are 

the only major installations that have 

three or more Brigade Combat Teams 

but no CAB dedicated to provide 

aviation support for training. The 

proposed action would allow the Army 

to maximize integrated air-ground 

training. Land acquisition is not being 

considered as part of this action. 

DATES: The public comment period will 

end 45 days after the publication of a 

notice of availability in the Federal 

Register by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

sent to: Public Affairs Office, U.S. Army 

Environmental Command, Attention: 

IMPA–AE, 1835 Army Boulevard, 

Basement (Building 2000), Fort Sam 

Houston, TX 78234–2686. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Public Affairs Office at (210) 221–0882; 

fax (410) 436–1693; or e-mail at APGR– 

USAECNEPA@conus.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A CAB 

consists of approximately 120 

helicopters, 600 wheeled vehicles, and 

2,700 Soldiers. The CAB is organized 

into five battalions and a headquarters 

unit. CAB units include combat, 

reconnaissance, and logistics support 

aircraft. 

The Draft PEIS assesses, considers, 

and compares the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental effects of 

proposed CAB growth and realignment 

for each alternative. The primary 

environmental issues evaluated include 

impacts to air quality, soil, airspace, 

cultural resources, natural resources, 

and noise. In addition, the Army 

considers those issues identified by the 

public and other organizations during 

the public scoping period (10 

September–10 October 2010). 

Environmental impacts associated 

with the implementation of the 

proposed action include significant 

impacts to transportation on the 

Interstate 5 corridor near JBLM and to 

fish and water quality in Puget Sound. 

There are potentially significant impacts 

to biological resources at YTC from 

increased potential for wildfire and 

habitat degradation associated with 

aviation training. Impacts will also 

include significant but mitigable 

impacts to soils at Fort Carson, PCMS, 

and YTC as well as significant but 

mitigable impacts to water resources at 

YTC. At PCMS, cumulative impacts to 

soils are predicted to be manageable 

with current dust control mitigation 

techniques. Impacts to cultural 

resources, air quality, noise impacts, 

public land use, and socioeconomic 

impacts were all determined to be less 

than significant. 

Members of the public, including 

native communities and federally 

recognized Native American Tribes, and 

Federal, State, and local agencies are 

invited to submit written comments on 

environmental issues, concerns and 

opportunities analyzed in the Draft 

PEIS. 

A copy of the Draft PEIS is available 

at http://aec.army.mil/usaec/nepa/ 

topics00.html. 

Dated: October 25, 2010. 

Hershell E. Wolfe, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Environment, Safety, and 

Occupational Health). 

[FR Doc. 2010–28035 Filed 11–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Record of Decision (ROD) for Training 

Range and Garrison Support Facilities 

Construction and Operation at Fort 

Stewart, GA 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army 

announces the availability of the ROD 

for the construction and operation of up 

to twelve range projects and two 

garrison support facilities at Fort 

Stewart. The Army, through the ROD, 

selects Alternative B for 

implementation. Alternative B includes 

sites for projects that predominantly 

utilize footprints of existing ranges, 

limits construction and restrictions on 

existing maneuver terrain, are located in 

relative close proximity to the 

cantonment area to reduce unit transit 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Notices 68335 

time, and have less overall 

environmental impacts. The decision 

sites ranges and support facilities in 

locations that reflect the proper balance 

of initiatives for the protection of the 

environment, mission needs, and 

Soldier and Family quality of life 

considerations. 

ADDRESSES: To request a copy of the 

ROD, please contact Mr. Charles 

Walden, Project Manager, Directorate of 

Public Works, Prevention and 

Compliance Branch, Environmental 

Division, 1550 Frank Cochran Drive, 

Building 1137–A, Fort Stewart, Georgia 

31314–4928 or e-mail 

Charles.Walden4@us.army.mil. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Kevin Larson, Public Affairs Office, at 

(912) 435–9879 during normal business 

hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

decision to proceed with the 

implementation of Alternative B allows 

the Army to better accomplish its 

sustainability goals on Fort Stewart 

because the sites are optimal for design, 

lessen environmental impacts, and are 

more land-use compatible. Minor to 

negligible impacts have been identified 

for cultural resources and consultation 

with the Georgia State Historic 

Preservation Office is complete. 

Moderate adverse impacts have been 

identified for soils, water quality, 

protected species, timber resources, 

wildland fire, and noise as part of 

implementing the decision. There are no 

practicable alternatives to locating the 

projects in wetlands or floodplains, but 

the selected alternative minimizes 

floodplain and wetland impacts. There 

will be moderate adverse impacts to 

protected species (red-cockaded 

woodpecker and frosted flatwood 

salamander). Formal consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

complete and all practicable mitigation 

measures and best management 

practices will be implemented to offset 

environmental impacts. The action will 

not jeopardize the continued existence 

of these species. The Known Distance 

Range, a Qualification Training Range, 

an Infantry Squad Battle Course, a Fire 

and Movement Range, and a 25 Meter 

Zero Range were analyzed as part of the 

proposed action in the Environmental 

Impact Statement, but have been 

deferred due to funding. These five 

ranges have been included in the ROD 

because they may be funded in the 

future. Mitigation associated with these 

ranges will be implemented in the event 

the ranges are constructed. The No 

Action Alternative would not provide 

enough ranges and support facilities 

needed to adequately accomplish the 

mission. Alternative C, with different 

range and support facility sitings than 

Alternative B, would result in greater 

adverse environmental impacts and is 

not preferred operationally. 

The Final EIS and ROD may be 

accessed at http://www.fortstewartmmp-eis.com. 

Dated: 25 October 2010. 

Hershell E. Wolfe, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Army, Environment, Safety and Occupational 

Health. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28036 Filed 11–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Comment request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(the Department), in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), 

provides the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and continuing 

collections of information. This helps 

the Department assess the impact of its 

information collection requirements and 

minimize the reporting burden on the 

public and helps the public understand 

the Department’s information collection 

requirements and provide the requested 

data in the desired format. The Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, 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 January 

4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding burden 

and/or the collection activity 

requirements should be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or 

mailed to U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, 

Washington, DC 20202–4537. Please 

note that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

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

that Federal agencies provide interested 

parties an early opportunity to comment 

on information collection requests. The 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory 

Information Management Services, 

Office of Management, publishes this 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests at the beginning of 

the Departmental review of the 

information collection. The Department 

of Education is especially interested in 

public comment addressing the 

following issues: (1) Is this collection 

necessary to the proper functions of the 

Department; (2) will this information be 

processed and used in a timely manner; 

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate; 

(4) how might the Department enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (5) how 

might the Department minimize the 

burden of this collection on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of information technology. 

Dated: November 1, 2010. 

Darrin A. King, 

Director, Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Vocational and Adult 

Education 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title of Collection: Measuring 

Educational Gain in the National 

Reporting System for Adult Education. 

OMB Control Number: 1830–0567. 

Agency Form Number(s): N/A. 

Frequency of Responses: Annually. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 15. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 600. 

Abstract: The Secretary has amended 

title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding a new part 462 

that establish procedures the Secretary 

uses when considering the suitability of 

tests for use in the National Reporting 

System (NRS) for adult education. The 

regulations further the Department’s 

implementation of section 212 of the 

Adult Education and Family Literacy 

Act (AEFLA). These regulations also 

include procedures that States and 

Local eligible providers would follow 

when using suitable tests. The AEFLA 

makes accountability for results a 

central focus of the law. It sets out 

performance accountability 

requirements for States and Local 

programs that measure program 

effectiveness on the basis of student 

academic achievement and other 

outcomes. 

Educational gain is the key outcome 

measure in the NRS, which describes 

students’ improvement in literacy skills 

during instruction. States are required to 

have their local programs assessments 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES