Notices. Notice; grant of special permit

7,565 words·~34 min read·/register/2008/02/12/08-658

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA—2006—25026] Pipeline Safety: Grant of Special Permit; Key West Pipeline Company AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT. ACTION: Notice; grant of special permit. SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is granting Key West Pipeline Company

(KWPC)a special permit waiving compliance from the Federal pipeline safety regulations that require a hazardous liquid pipeline operator to place a marker over the center of an exposed underwater pipeline segment that is less than 200 yards long and to bury an exposed underwater pipeline segment so that the top of the pipe is 36 inches below the underwater natural bottom for normal excavation or 18 inches for rock excavation. PHMSA finds that granting this special permit is not inconsistent with pipeline safety because the special permit analysis shows that the KWPC exposed underwater pipeline segment is in a restricted, shallow channel with surrounding water depths that would cause vessels to run aground before contacting the exposed underwater pipeline segment. Also, the United States Coast Guard

(USCG)has determined that placing a marker in the channel over the center of the exposed underwater pipeline segment would pose a hazard to navigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lemoi at

(404)832-1160 or by e-mail at *Wayne.Lemoi@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Special Permit Request *Pipeline Operator:* KWPC petitioned PHMSA on January 10, 2006, for a special permit waiving compliance from the Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR 195.413(c)(2) and 195.413(c)(3) for an exposed underwater pipeline segment in the Key West, Florida area. The regulations require a hazardous liquid pipeline operator to place a marker above the center of an exposed underwater pipeline segment that is less than 200 yards long in accordance with 33 CFR part 64 and to bury an exposed underwater pipeline segment so that the top of the pipe is 36 inches below the underwater natural bottom for normal excavation or 18 inches for rock excavation. The operator must complete the burial of the pipeline within six months after discovery of the exposed pipe, or no later than November 1 of the following year if the six month period is later than November 1 of the year of discovery. *Pipeline System Affected:* This special permit covers 200 feet of exposed pipe on a four mile underwater pipeline segment that runs from the Trumbo Point Naval Annex of the Key West Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida to Stock Island, Florida. The exposed segment lies in the Fleming Channel immediately adjacent to the Trumbo Point Naval Annex. Both sides of the Fleming Channel, near the exposed pipeline, are bordered by annexes of the Key West Naval Air Station. The four mile underwater pipeline segment is the western portion of the 7.1-mile, 4-inch KWPC pipeline, which transports JP5 jet fuel from KWPC's Bulk Storage and Transfer Facility on Key West to the U.S. Navy's bulk fuel storage facility on Boca Chita Key, Florida. The *special permit segment* is defined as 200 feet of the KWPC pipeline from station 0+00 to station 2+00 as shown in Figure 4 of the KWPC special permit request dated January 10, 2006. Public Notice On October 16, 2006, PHMSA posted notice of the KWPC request in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 60794) inviting interested persons to comment on the request. On February 8, 2007, PHMSA posted another notice in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 6042) informing the public that we have changed the name granting a waiver to a special permit. We did not receive any comments for or against this special permit request as a result of this notice. The special permit request, **Federal Register** notice and all other pertinent documents are available for review by the public in Docket Number PHMSA-2006-25026 in the Federal Docket Management System located on the internet at *www.Regulations.gov.* Special Permit Analysis *Background:* In response to the Offshore Pipelines Navigation Hazards Act, Public Law 101-599, the Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR Part 195 were amended on November 27, 1991, to require an inspection of underwater pipelines in the *Gulf of Mexico and its inlets* to be completed before November 16, 1992. Amendment 195-47 defined the *Gulf of Mexico and its inlets* to mean the waters from the mean high-water mark of the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets open to the sea (excluding rivers, tidal marshes, lakes and canals) seaward to include the territorial sea and Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS)to a depth of 15 feet, as measured from the mean low water. If during an inspection, an operator discovered a pipeline it operates was an *exposed underwater pipeline* or constituted a *hazard to navigation,* the operator was required to promptly notify the National Response Center, mark the pipeline within 7 days, and rebury the pipe 36 inches below the seabed for normal excavation or 18 inches below the seabed for rock excavation. The amendment defined *exposed underwater pipeline* to mean a pipeline where the top of the pipe is protruding above the seabed in water less than 15 feet deep, as measured from the mean low water. It defined a *hazard to navigation* to mean a pipeline where the top of the pipe is less than 12 inches below the seabed in water less than 15 feet deep, as measured from the mean low water. To gain further information on the risks posed by underwater pipelines, the DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety

(OPS)[now PHMSA] and the Department of Interior's, Minerals Management Service, requested the Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council conduct an interdisciplinary review and assessment of the many technical, regulatory and jurisdictional issues that affect the safety of marine pipelines in the offshore waters of the United States. The National Research Council appointed the Committee on the Safety of Marine Pipelines (Committee), under the auspices of the Marine Board, to undertake the task. The Committee studied the Gulf of Mexico where about 99 percent of the marine pipeline mileage is located. According to the Committee's 1994 report, the Committee found the marine pipeline network does not present an extraordinary threat to human life and that pipeline accidents involving deaths or injuries were rare. The Committee also found the most widespread risks posed by pipelines are oil pollution, mainly due to pipeline damage caused by vessels and their gear, and impacts from anchors, nets, trawl boards and hulls of cargo, fishing, and service vessels and mobile drilling rigs account for most of the injuries, deaths, property damage, and pollution. For example, the report notes that anchor damage alone accounted for 90 percent of the pipeline-related pollution on the OCS of the Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, the report states that very few incidents produced most of the oil pollution from pipelines. That is, the largest 11 pipeline spills caused by vessels accounted for 98 percent of the pollution from pipelines. The Committee's report concluded the risks generally can be managed with available technology and without major new regulations if enforcement of current regulations is improved. The Committee recommended that operators inspect the depth of burial of underwater pipelines at intervals determined by analysis of the probabilities of risks. High risk areas are zones of high density of pipelines; high density of vessel traffic; shallow waters; the immediate vicinity of platforms; areas of severe erosion or shift of the sea floor and high potential for flooding; and areas affected by hurricanes or severe storms. According to the Committee report, operators should schedule surveys of pipelines using the relatively predictable behavior of sediment and shoreline erosion and after the passage of major storms. On July 29, 2004, 49 CFR part 195 was amended (Amendment 195-82) with additional underwater inspection requirements. The new and current regulations require operators to prepare and follow a procedure to identify pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets in waters less than 15 feet deep (as measured from mean low water) that are at risk of being *exposed underwater pipelines* or *hazards to navigation.* The regulations also require each operator to conduct periodic underwater inspections of its pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets in waters less than 15 feet deep based on the identified risk. In lieu of reburial of the discovered underwater exposed or hazard to navigation pipeline, the regulations now allow an operator to employ engineered alternatives that meet or exceed the level of protection provided by burial. *Pipeline Marker Analysis:* In its special permit petition submittals, KWPC asserted that a pipeline marker placed over the center of the KWPC exposed underwater pipeline segment in accordance with 49 CFR 195.413(c)(2) would pose a hazard to navigation in Fleming Channel. Therefore, KWPC proposed an alternate marking method to include a marker on the shorelines of both Key West and Fleming Key as well as an additional marker on the west side of the nearby road bridge linking Key West to Fleming Key. KWPC included with its submittals to PHMSA a letter from the USCG dated September 6, 2005, which approved an alternate marking method. However, the USCG letter did not address KWPC's claim that a marker placed in the channel above the center of the exposed underwater pipeline segment would create a hazard in the channel. Therefore, PHMSA sought and received additional information on this issue. This information includes a *Special Purpose Survey* signed and certified on October 2, 2007, by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Florida. The survey provided the coordinates of the end points and center of the exposed underwater pipeline segment. PHMSA forwarded these coordinates via e-mail to the USCG for evaluation. In a return letter to PHMSA dated November 26, 2007, the USCG stated a “pipeline crossing sign above the center of the exposed pipeline is considered a hazard to navigation for vessels transiting Fleming Cut in that area” and recommended that a standard “Danger Pipeline Crossing” sign be placed on the south side of Fleming Key Cut. KWPC's alternate marking method includes the USCG recommended sign and two other signs: One on the north side of Fleming Key Cut and one on the nearby road bridge linking Key West to Fleming Key. *Hazard to Navigation Analysis:* A review of the legislative and rulemaking histories relative to inspecting underwater pipelines reveals the Offshore Pipelines Navigation Hazards Act, Public Law 101-599 and subsequent rulemaking by DOT were intended to protect the public from the hazards associated with pipeline damage caused primarily by commercial fishing vessels in the shallow waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Congress passed the law in response to two fatal accidents in the late 1980s in the Gulf of Mexico near the Texas and Louisiana coastlines. The DOT subsequently published regulations in response to the law and to meet its mandate to protect the public and the environment from the risks posed by underwater natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. A review of the legislative and rulemaking histories also reveals there was considerable debate about what did, or did not, constitute a *hazard to navigation.* While the underwater exposed KWPC pipeline segment meets the regulatory definition of a *hazard to navigation,* there is considerable support for concluding that no actual hazard to navigation exists. This support includes the following facts provided by KWPC:

(1)The exposed underwater pipeline segment is located hundreds of miles from the primary area of concern, the northern Gulf of Mexico and its inlets.

(2)Commercial fishing vessels of the type used in the northern Gulf of Mexico do not operate in the area of the exposed underwater pipeline segment.

(3)The exposed underwater pipeline segment is in Fleming Channel, which is only used by pleasure boats seeking access to Key West Harbor from Garrison Bright and the Key West Yacht Club.

(4)Shallow waters in the Fleming Channel (11 feet) and surrounding waters limit the transit traffic in the channel to vessels with drafts less than 6.5 feet, allowing for a minimum clearance of 4.5 feet above the exposed underwater pipeline segment.

(5)Navigational charts for the Key West Harbor show the maximum clearance beneath the road bridge linking Key West with Fleming Key is 18 feet. This low bridge clearance restricts the size of vessels able to enter Fleming Channel near the exposed underwater pipeline segment.

(6)Navigational charts for Key West Harbor show the exposed underwater pipeline within a restricted, no anchorage area, under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulation 33 CFR 334.610, Danger Zone and Restricted Area Regulations.

(7)Both sides of Fleming Channel, near the exposed pipeline, are part of military annexes belonging to the Key West Naval Air Station. The naval air station has regulations prohibiting anchorage within the vicinity of the exposed underwater pipeline. A letter to KWPC of November 29, 2005, signed by the Chief, Prevention Division, Seventh Coast Guard District, USCG states: “The pipeline is submerged in a shallow area that is transited solely by recreational vessels and surrounding waters restrict the size of vessels that can transit the Fleming Key Cut. Due to the surrounding water depths, vessels would run aground before contacting the pipeline. Furthermore, covering the pipeline with the appropriate amount of fill would reduce water depth further. Based on the above factors, I have determined the exposed section of pipeline does not pose danger to navigation that requires USCG action under existing statutory authorities.” Special Permit Findings PHMSA finds that granting this special permit is not inconsistent with pipeline safety and will provide a level of safety equal to or greater than reburial of the exposed underwater pipeline segment. We do so because the special permit analysis shows the following:

(1)The alternate pipeline marking method proposed by KWPC, and agreed to by the USCG, will provide for three pipeline markers in lieu of one pipeline marker and will provide adequate warning to passing boats in Fleming Channel.

(2)The alternate pipeline marking method proposed by KWPC, and agreed to by the USCG, will avoid the navigational hazard that would be created by placing a single marker above the center of the exposed underwater pipeline segment.

(3)The underwater exposed pipeline segment is in a shallow channel where it is unlikely to be struck by a commercial fishing vessel or gear from a commercial fishing vessel.

(4)The underwater exposed pipeline segment is in a shallow channel restricted area where the U.S. Navy enforces a prohibition against anchoring.

(5)The USCG states the surrounding water depths would cause vessels to run aground before contacting the underwater exposed pipeline segment.

(6)PHMSA is granting this special permit subject to conditions and limitations to ensure KWPC employs an alternate marking method to provide a level of safety equal to or greater than a marker placed above the center of the exposed underwater pipeline segment.

(7)PHMSA is granting this special permit subject to conditions and limitations to ensure KWPC employs alternative actions to provide a level of safety equal to or greater than reburial of the exposed underwater pipeline segment. Special Permit Grant PHMSA grants a special permit of compliance from 49 CFR 195.413(c)(2) and 95.413(c)(3) to KWPC for 200 feet of the KWPC pipeline from station 0+00 to station 2+00 as shown in Figure 4 of the KWPC special permit request dated January 10, 2006. Special Permit Conditions PHMSA grants this special permit with the following conditions:

(1)KWPC will place signs on the shoreline of Key West and Fleming Key, immediately adjacent to the exposed underwater pipeline segment with the following information: WARNING Restricted Area Transit Only No Stopping or Anchoring Within 100 Yards of Shore Underwater Utility 33 CFR 334.610

(2)KWPC will place a similar sign on the west side of the road bridge linking Key West to Fleming Key.

(3)In addition to the 5-year inspections performed under KWPC's procedures for inspections of underwater segments in the Gulf of Mexico in waters less than 15 feet deep, KWPC will inspect the exposed underwater pipeline segment on an annual basis to confirm that there has been no material change in the condition of the exposed underwater pipeline segment.

(4)KWPC will notify the Director, PHMSA Southern Region within 30 days, in writing, of any a. material change in condition of the exposed underwater pipeline segment found during any annual or 5-year inspection; b. any reportable or non-reportable leaks or incidents on the KWPC pipeline, which impact the exposed underwater pipeline segment; and c. mergers, acquisitions, transfer of assets or other events affecting the regulatory responsibility of the company operating the KWPC pipeline. Special Permit Limitations PHMSA has the sole authority to make all determinations on whether KWPC has complied with the specified conditions. Should KWPC fail to comply with any conditions of this special permit, or should PHMSA determine this special permit is no longer appropriate or that this special permit is inconsistent with pipeline safety, PHMSA may revoke this special permit and require KWPC to comply with the regulatory requirements of 49 CFR 195.413(c)(2) and 195.413(c)(3). Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60118(c)(1) and 49 CFR 1.53. Issued in Washington, DC on February 6, 2008. Jeffrey D. Wiese, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. E8-2533 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 35095] The Alaska Railroad Corporation—Petition for Exemption To Construct and Operate a Rail Line Extension to Port MacKenzie, AK AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Notice of Availability of the Draft Scope of Study for the Environmental Impact Statement; Notice of Scoping Meetings; and Request for Comments on Draft Scope. SUMMARY: The Alaska Railroad Corporation

(ARRC)plans to file a petition with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502 for authority to construct and operate approximately 30 to 45 miles of new rail line connecting the Matanuska-Susitna Borough's Port MacKenzie (or Port) in south-central Alaska to a point on the ARRC main line between Wasilla and north of Willow, Alaska. The proposed Port MacKenzie Rail Extension (or Project) would provide freight services between the Port and Interior Alaska and would support the Port's continuing development as an intermodal and bulk material resources export and import facility. The Port is owned by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough

(MSB)and MSB is a co-sponsor of the Project. Because the construction and operation of this Project has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts, the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis

(SEA)has determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)is appropriate pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ). The purpose of this Notice of Intent is to notify individuals and agencies interested in or affected by the proposed Project of the decision to prepare an EIS. SEA will hold public scoping meetings as part of the NEPA process associated with the development of the EIS. Additionally, as part of the scoping process, SEA has developed a draft Scope of Study for the EIS for review and comment. Public meeting dates and locations, along with the draft Scope of Study, are provided herein. *Dates and Locations:* The public scoping meetings will be held at the following locations: • March 3, 2008, 5-8 p.m. at Knik Elementary School, 6350 West Hollywood, Wasilla, AK. • March 4, 2008, 5-8 p.m. at Big Lake Elementary School, 3808 South Big Lake Road, Big Lake, AK. • March 5, 2008, 5-8 p.m. at Willow Area Community Center, Mile 70 Parks Highway, Willow, AK. • March 6, 2008, 5-8 p.m. at Houston Middle School, 12801 W. Hawk Lane, Houston, AK. • March 10, 2008, 5-8 p.m., at Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex, 1001 S. Mack Drive, Wasilla, AK. • March 11, 2008, 5-8 p.m. at Anchorage Senior Center, 1300 East 19th Avenue, Anchorage, AK. The scoping meetings will be held in an informal workshop format during which interested persons may ask questions about the proposed Project and the Board's environmental review process, and advise SEA staff about potential environmental effects of the Project. No formal presentations will be made by agency representatives. SEA staff will be available to answer questions and receive comments individually. The meeting locations comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 *et seq.* ). Persons that need special accommodations should telephone SEA's toll-free number for the Project at 1-888-257-7560. Interested parties are invited to submit written comments on the draft Scope of Study, alternative routes for the proposed rail line, and other environmental issues and concerns by March 21, 2008, to assure full consideration during the scoping process. SEA will issue a final Scope of Study after the close of the scoping comment period. *Summary of the Board's Environmental Review Process:* The NEPA process is intended to assist the Board and the public in identifying and assessing the potential environmental consequences of a proposed action before a decision on the proposed action is made. SEA is responsible for ensuring that the Board complies with NEPA and related environmental statutes. The first stage of the EIS process is scoping. Scoping is an open process for determining the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. As part of the scoping process, SEA has developed, and has made available in this notice, a draft Scope of Study for the EIS. Concurrently, scoping meetings will be held to provide further opportunities for public involvement and input during the scoping process. In addition to the Scope of Study, interested parties are also encouraged to comment on potential routes for the proposed Project. SEA is currently considering eight alternative routes that have been identified by MSB and ARRC. At the conclusion of the scoping and comment period, SEA will issue a final Scope of Study for the EIS. After issuing the final Scope of Study, SEA will prepare a Draft EIS for the Project. The Draft EIS will address the environmental issues and concerns identified during the scoping process. It will also contain SEA's preliminary recommendations for environmental mitigation measures. The Draft EIS will be made available upon its completion for review and comment by the public, government agencies, and other interested parties. SEA will prepare a Final EIS that considers comments on the Draft EIS. In reaching its decision in this case, the Board will take into account the Draft EIS, the Final EIS, and all environmental comments that are received. SEA has recently invited several agencies to participate in this EIS process as cooperating agencies on the basis of their special expertise or jurisdiction by law. These agencies include: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Alaska District; Alaska Department of Natural Resources; and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. *Filing Environmental Comments:* Comments submitted by mail should be addressed to: David Navecky, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, Attention: Environmental Filing, STB Finance Docket No. 35095. Comments may also be filed electronically on the Board's Web site, *http://www.stb.dot.gov,* by clicking on the “E-FILING” link. Please refer to STB Finance Docket No. 35095 in all correspondence, including e-filings, addressed to the Board. Comments are due by March 21, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Navecky, Section of Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423, or call SEA's toll-free number for the Project at 1-888-257-7560. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. The Web site for the Board is *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Project specific information on the Board's Web site may be found by placing your cursor on the “Environmental Matters” button, then clicking on the “Key Cases” button in the drop down menu. Draft Scope of Study for the EIS Purpose and Need The purpose of the Project is to establish a rail link between the Port and the ARRC rail system, providing Port customers and shippers with rail transportation between the Port and Interior Alaska. The Port is a deepwater facility on the north side of Knik Arm in upper Cook Inlet, located in south-central Alaska. Presently, the only surface mode of freight transport available to the Port is trucking. The construction of a rail line would satisfy the need for an additional mode of transportation for the movement of bulk materials, intermodal containers, and other freight to and from the Port. Proposed Action and Alternatives The proposed rail line would extend approximately 30 to 45 miles, depending on the route selected, from the Port to ARRC's existing main line between Wasilla and north of Willow. Other major elements of the proposed Project would include a 200-foot-wide right-of-way; crossings of local roads, streams, trails, and utility corridors; sidings; and ancillary facilities. The anticipated train traffic would be two trains daily on average, with one train per day traveling in each direction. The EIS will analyze the potential impacts of alternative routes and a no-action alternative. The reasonable and feasible alternatives that will be evaluated in the EIS are:

(1)Construction and operation of the proposed rail line along several alternative alignments,

(2)other route alternatives that might be identified during the scoping process, and

(3)the no-action alternative. Environmental Impact Analysis Proposed New Construction Analysis in the EIS will address the proposed activities associated with the construction and operation of new rail facilities and their potential environmental impacts, as appropriate. Impact Categories The EIS will analyze potential direct and indirect impacts for each alternative of the proposed construction and operation of new rail facilities on the human and natural environment, or in the case of the no-action, of the lack of these activities. Impact areas addressed will include the categories of land use, recreation, biological resources, water resources including wetlands and other waters of the U.S., navigation, geology and soils, air quality, noise, energy resources, socioeconomics as they relate to physical changes in the environment, safety, grade crossing delay, cultural and historic resources, and environmental justice. Other categories of impacts may also be included as a result of comments received during the scoping process or the draft EIS. The EIS will include a discussion of each of these categories as they currently exist in the Project area and will address the potential direct and indirect impacts of each alternative on each category as described below: 1. Safety The EIS will: a. Describe existing road/rail grade crossing safety and analyze the potential for an increase in accidents related to the new rail operations, as appropriate. b. Describe existing rail operations and analyze the potential for increased probability of train accidents, as appropriate. c. Evaluate the potential for disruption and delays to the movement of emergency vehicles. d. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential Project impacts to safety, as appropriate. 2. Land Use The EIS will: a. Evaluate potential impacts of each alternative on existing land use patterns within the Project area and identify those land uses that would be potentially impacted by new rail line construction. b. Analyze the potential impacts associated with each alternative to land uses identified within the Project area. Such potential impacts may include incompatibility with existing land use and conversion of land to railroad use. c. Determine if the proposed rail line is consistent with Alaska's coastal management program. d. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential impacts to land use, as appropriate. 3. Recreation The EIS will: a. Evaluate existing conditions and the potential impacts of the alternatives, including the various new rail line construction alignments and their operation, on recreational trails and other opportunities provided in the Project area. b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential Project impacts on recreational opportunities, as appropriate. 4. Biological Resources The EIS will: a. Evaluate the existing biological resources within the Project area, including vegetative communities, wildlife, anadromous and other fisheries, wetlands, and Federal and state threatened or endangered species and the potential impacts to these resources resulting from each alternative. b. Describe any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, national or state parks, forests, or grasslands and evaluate the potential impacts to these resources resulting from each alternative. c. Propose mitigative measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential impacts to biological resources, as appropriate. 5. Water Resources The EIS will: a. Describe the existing surface water and groundwater resources within the Project area, including lakes, rivers, streams, stock ponds, wetlands, and floodplains and analyze the potential impacts on these resources resulting from each alternative. b. Describe the permitting requirements for the various alternatives with regard to wetlands, stream and river crossings, water quality, floodplains, and erosion control. c. Propose mitigative measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for potential Project impacts to water resources, as appropriate. 6. Navigation The EIS will: a. Identify existing navigable waterways within the Project area and analyze the potential impacts on navigability resulting from each alternative. b. Describe the permitting requirements for the various alternatives with regards to navigation. c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential impacts to navigation, as appropriate. 7. Geology and Soils The EIS will: a. Describe the geology, soils and seismic conditions found within the Project area, including unique or problematic geologic formations or soils, prime farmland, and hydric soils, and analyze the potential impacts on these resources resulting from the various alternatives for construction and operation of a new rail line. b. Evaluate potential measures employed to avoid or construct through unique or problematic geologic formations or soils. c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential Project impacts to geology and soils, as appropriate. 8. Air Quality The EIS will: a. Evaluate rail operation air emissions, if the alternative would affect a Class I or non-attainment or maintenance area as designated under the Clean Air Act. b. Describe the potential air quality impact resulting from new rail line construction activities. c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential Project impacts to air quality, as appropriate. 9. Noise The EIS will: a. Describe the potential noise impacts during new rail line construction. b. Describe the potential noise impacts of new rail line operation. c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential Project impacts to sensitive noise receptors, as appropriate. 10. Energy Resources The EIS will: a. Describe and evaluate the potential impact of the new rail line on the distribution of energy resources in the Project area for each alternative, including petroleum and gas pipelines and overhead electric transmission lines. b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential Project impacts to energy resources, as appropriate. 11. Socioeconomics The EIS will: a. Analyze the effects of a potential influx of construction workers and the potential increase in demand for local services interrelated with natural or physical environmental effects. b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential Project adverse impacts to social and economic resources, as appropriate. 12. Transportation Systems The EIS will: a. Evaluate the potential impacts of each alternative, including new rail line construction and operation, on the existing transportation network in the Project area, including vehicular delays at grade crossings. b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential Project impacts to transportation systems, as appropriate. 13. Cultural and Historic Resources The EIS will: a. Analyze the potential impacts to historic structures or districts previously recorded and determined potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on the National Register of Historic Places within or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way for the proposed rail alignments. b. Evaluate the potential impacts of each alternative to archaeological sites previously recorded and either listed as unevaluated or determined potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on the National Register of Historic Places within the right-of-way for the alternative rail alignments and the no-action alternative. c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential Project impacts to cultural and historic resources, as appropriate. 14. Environmental Justice The EIS will: a. Evaluate the potential impacts of each alternative, including construction and operation of the rail lines, on local and regional minority populations and low-income populations. b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential Project impacts on environmental justice issues, as appropriate. 15. Cumulative Impacts The EIS will address the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, Section of Environmental Analysis. Anne K. Quinlan, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2562 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal Without Change of a Current Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In order to comply with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FinCEN intends to submit the information collection addressed in this notice for a three-year extension of approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB Control Number 1506-0043 currently covers the information collection addressed in this notice. Prior to submission of the extension request, FinCEN is soliciting comment on those information collections in 31 CFR 103.177, Prohibition on correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks; records concerning owners of foreign banks and agents for service of legal process. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 1506-0043, by any of the following methods: • Federal e-rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *regcomments@fincen.gov.* Include OMB Control Number 1506-0043 in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Include OMB Control Number 1506-0043 in the body of the text. *Instructions:* It is preferable for comments to be submitted by electronic mail. Please submit comments by one method only. All submissions received must include the agency name and the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)control number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fincen.gov,* including any personal information provided. *Inspection of comments:* Comments may be inspected, between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., in the FinCEN reading room in Vienna, VA. Persons wishing to inspect the comments submitted must request an appointment with the Disclosure Officer by telephoning

(703)905-5034 (Not a toll free call). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FinCEN Regulatory helpline at

(800)949-2732 and select Option 6. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), Titles I and II of Public Law 91-508, as amended, codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829(b), 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. *et seq.* , authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, *inter alia,* to issue regulations requiring records and reports that are determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax and regulatory matters. Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, included certain amendments to the anti-money laundering provisions of Title II of the BSA, 31 U.S.C. 5311 *et seq.* , which are intended to aid in the prevention, detection and prosecution of international money laundering and terrorist financing. Regulations implementing Title II of the BSA appear at 31 CFR part 103. The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to administer Title II of the BSA has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN. The information collected and retained under the regulation addressed in this notice assist federal, state, and local law enforcement as well as regulatory authorities in the identification, investigation and prosecution of money laundering and other matters. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), and its implementing regulations, the following information is presented concerning the information collection below. *Title:* Correspondent Accounts for Foreign Shell Banks; Recordkeeping and Termination of Correspondent Accounts for Foreign Banks (31 CFR 103.177). *OMB Number:* 1506-0043. 1 1 This collection was formerly assigned OMB Control number 1505-0184. *Abstract:* Covered financial institutions are prohibited from maintaining correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks (31 CFR 103.177(a)(1)). Covered financial institutions that maintain correspondent accounts for foreign banks must maintain records of owner(s) of the foreign bank and the names and address of a person residing in the United States who is authorized to accept service of legal process for the foreign bank (31 CFR 103.177(a)(2)). Covered financial institutions may satisfy these requirements by using the sample certification and re-certification forms contained in Appendices A and B of 31 CFR 103. Records of documents relied upon by a financial institution for purposes of 31 CFR 103.177 must be maintained for at least five years after the date that the financial institution no longer maintains a correspondent account for such foreign bank (31 CFR 103.177(e)). *Current Action:* There is no change to the existing regulations. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Businesses or for-profit institutions, and non-profit institutions. *Burden:* The estimated average annual reporting burden associated with Appendix A is 20 hours per respondent; the estimated average annual reporting burden associated with Appendix B is 5 hours per respondent; and the estimated average recordkeeping burden associated with section 103.177(e) is 9 hours per recordkeeper. The following paragraph applies to the collection of information addressed in this notice. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Records required to be retained under the BSA must be retained for five years. Generally, information collected pursuant to the BSA is confidential, but may be shared as provided by law with regulatory and law enforcement authorities. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance and purchase of services to provide information. Dated: February 1, 2008. James H. Freis, Jr. Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. [FR Doc. E8-2505 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P 73 29 Tuesday, February 12, 2008 Presidential Documents Title 3— The President Executive Order 13459 of February 7, 2008 Improving the Coordination and Effectiveness of Youth Programs By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in recognition of the successful interagency collaboration resulting from the *Helping America's Youth* initiative, it is hereby ordered as follows: **Section 1.** *Policy* . It is the policy of the Federal Government to promote achievement of positive results for at-risk youth through:

(a)enhanced collaboration among government organizations at the Federal, State, and local level, including with faith-based and other community organizations, as well as among families, schools, and communities, in order to leverage existing resources and improve outcomes;

(b)identification and dissemination of promising strategies and practices that have been proven effective through rigorous evaluation; and

(c)online publication of essential information to assist interested citizens and decision-makers, particularly at the community level, to plan, implement, and participate in effective programs for at-risk youth. **Sec. 2.** *Establishment of the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs* . The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) shall establish within the Department of Health and Human Services for administrative purposes only, an Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (Working Group), consistent with this order and reflecting the ongoing interagency collaboration under the *Helping America's Youth* initiative. **Sec. 3.** *Membership and Operation of the Working Group* .

(a)The Working Group shall consist exclusively of the following members or their designees, who shall be full-time Federal officers or employees:

(i)the Secretary;

(ii)the Attorney General;

(iii)the Secretaries of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Education;

(iv)the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy;

(v)the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and

(vi)other officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States, as determined by the Secretary, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.

(b)The Secretary (or the Secretary's designee) shall serve as Chair, and the Attorney General (or the Attorney General's designee) shall serve as Vice Chair, for a period of 2 years from the date of this order. Subsequent Chairs and Vice Chairs shall be designated by the Secretary on a biennial basis.

(c)In implementing this section, the Chair, and in the Chair's absence the Vice Chair, shall convene and preside at meetings of the Working Group, determine its agenda, direct its work, and establish and direct subgroups of the Working Group, as appropriate, to deal with particular subject matters, that shall consist exclusively of members of the Working Group or their designees. The Chair, after consultation with the Vice Chair, shall designate an officer or employee of one of the member departments or agencies to serve as the Executive Secretary of the Working Group. The Executive Secretary shall head any staff assigned to the Working Group and any subgroups thereof, and such staff shall consist exclusively of full-time or permanent part-time Federal employees. **Sec. 4.** *Functions of the Working Group* . Consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, the Working Group shall:

(a)identify and engage key government and private or nonprofit organizations that can play a role in improving the coordination and effectiveness of programs serving and engaging youth, such as faith-based and other community organizations, businesses, volunteers, and other key constituencies;

(b)develop a new Federal website on youth, built upon the *Community Guide to Helping America's Youth* , with the first phase of this website to be launched within 10 months of the date of this order, by:

(i)identifying and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of existing Federal websites focusing on youth-serving entities in order to improve access to the most useful content;

(ii)providing for training to youth-serving entities to enable effective use of the Federal website;

(iii)developing additional strategies and tools and resources accessible through the Federal website that will help promote effective community-based efforts to reduce the factors that put youth at risk and the provision of high-quality services to at-risk youth across the country; and

(iv)developing strategies to ensure that the Federal website is routinely updated, improved, and publicized;

(c)encourage all youth-serving Federal and State agencies, communities, grantees, and organizations to adopt high standards for assessing program results, including through the use of rigorous impact evaluations, as appropriate, so that the most effective practices can be identified and replicated, and ineffective or duplicative programs can be eliminated or reformed; (d)(i) identify and promote initiatives and activities that merit strong interagency collaboration because of their potential to offer cost-effective solutions to achieve better results for at-risk youth, including volunteer service in concert with the USA Freedom Corps and mentoring in concert with the Federal Mentoring Council; and,

(ii)encourage rigorous evaluations, as appropriate, of such initiatives and activities to ascertain their effectiveness in improving academic, employment, social, and other individual outcomes, and make these findings publicly available, and

(e)annually report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, on its work and on the implementation of any recommendations arising from its work, with the first such report to be submitted no later than 6 months after the date of this order. **Sec. 5.** *Administration of the Working Group* .

(a)The Secretary shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide administrative support and funding for the Working Group. With the consent of the Secretary, other member departments or agencies may provide administrative support to the Working Group, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with their statutory authority.

(b)The heads of executive departments and agencies shall provide, as appropriate, such assistance and information as the Secretary may request to implement this order.

(c)The website referred to in section 4(b) of this order shall be funded by contributions from executive departments and agencies to the extent permitted by law and consistent with their statutory authority. **Sec. 6.** *General Provisions* .

(a)Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. GWBOLD.EPS THE WHITE HOUSE, February 7, 2008. [FR Doc. 08-658 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

CFR