Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 41431 

EIS No. 20090280, Draft Supplement, 

FHW, TN, Shelby Avenue/ 

Demonbreun Street (Gateway 

Boulevard Corridor, from I–65 North 

[I–24 West] to I–40 West in 

Downtown Nashville, To Address 

Transportation needs in the Study 

Area. Davidson County, TN, Comment 

Period Ends: 09/28/2009, Contact: 

Charles O’Neill 615–781–5770. 

EIS No. 20090281, Final EIS, BLM, WY, 

South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

Applications, WYW172585, 

WYW173360, 

WYW172657,WYW161248, Proposal 

to Lease Four Tracts of Federal Coal 

Reserves, Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, 

Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines, 

Wyoming Powder River Basin, 

Campbell County, WY, Wait Period 

Ends: 09/14/2009, Contact: Teresa 

Johnson 307–261–7510. 

EIS No. 20090282, Final EIS, FRC, VA, 

Smith Mountain Pumped Storage 

Project (FERC No. 2210–169). 

Application for Hydropower License 

to continue Operating the636- 

megawatt Pumped Storage Project, 

Roanoke River, Smith Mountain 

Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 

2210–169). Application for 

Hydropower License to continue 

Operating the 636-megawatt Pumped 

Storage Project, Roanoke River, 

Bedford, Campbell, Franklin and 

Pittsylvania Counties, VA, Wait 

Period Ends: 09/14/2009, Contact: 

Julia Bovey 1–866–208–3372. 

EIS No. 20090283, Draft EIS, NPS, WI, 

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 

General Management Plan/Wilderness 

Management Plan, Implementation, 

Bayfield and Ashland Counties, WI, 

Comment Period Ends: 10/13/2009, 

Contact: Nick Chevance 402–661– 

1844. 

EIS No. 20090284, Final EIS, ARD, WA, 

Adoption—White Pass Expansion 

Master Development Plan, 

Implementation, Naches Ranger 

District, Okanogan-Wenatchee 

National Forests and Cowlitz Valley 

Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest, Yakima and Lewis 

Counties, WA, Wait Period Ends: 09/ 

14/2009, Contact: Frank Mancino 

202–720–1827. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Rural Development Program has 

adopted the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service’s FEIS 

#20070279 filed 06/29/2007. Rural 

Development Program was not a 

Cooperating Agency on the above FEIS. 

Under section 1506.3(b) of the CEQ 

Regulations, the FEIS must be 

Recirculated for a 30-day Wait Period. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20090262, Draft EIS, EPA, GU, 

Apra Harbor, Guam, Proposed Site 

Designation of an Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Site Offshore of 

Guam, Comment Period Ends: 10/06/ 

2009, Contact: Allan Ota 415–972– 

3476. Revision to FR Notice Published 

07/31/2009: Correction to the 

Comment Period from 09/28/2009 to 

10/06/2009. 

Dated: August 11, 2009. 

Ken Mittelholtz, 

Environmental Protection Specialist, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. E9–19557 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[Docket No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2009–0331; 

FRL–8939–6] 

Availability of Draft ‘‘Planning 

Guidance for Recovery Following 

Biological Incidents’’ 

AGENCIES: White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Homeland Security Act 

of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–296 Section 301) 

directs the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, in partnership with 

other federal agencies, to develop and 

implement countermeasures to prepare 

for and respond to chemical, biological, 

radiological and nuclear threats. The 

White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) are issuing a 

draft guidance document entitled 

‘‘Planning Guidance for Recovery 

Following Biological Incidents’’ for 

federal, state, local, and tribal decision 

makers who may find it useful in 

planning and responding to a biological 

incident. 

This draft Guidance describes a 

general risk management framework for 

government and nongovernmental 

decision-makers, at all levels, in 

planning and executing activities 

required for response and recovery from 

a biological incident in a domestic, 

civilian setting. The objective of this 

guidance is to provide federal, state, 

local, and tribal decision makers with 

uniform federal guidance to protect the 

public, emergency responders, and 

surrounding environments and to 

ensure that local and federal first 

responders can prepare for an incident 

involving biological contamination. 

This draft Guidance is not intended to 

impact site cleanups occurring under 

other statutory authorities such as EPA’s 

Superfund Program, or other federal and 

state clean-up programs. 

This draft guidance is provided for 

immediate use, and will be revised as 

needed based on comments received 

and changes in regulation and 

emergency response guidance. The draft 

guidance is available at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. (Docket no. EPA– 

HQ–ORD–2009–0331). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

November 16, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Brendan Doyle, Senior Policy Advisor, 

National Homeland Security Research 

Center, Office of Research and 

Development, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (MC: 8801R), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: 202 

564–4584 or doyle.brendan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(Pub. L. 107–296, as amended) directs 

DHS, in partnership with other federal 

agencies, to develop and implement 

countermeasures to prepare for and 

respond to chemical, biological, 

radiological, and nuclear threats. 

Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive—10: Biodefense for the 21st 

Century describes the interagency 

activity required to meet this charge. 

This draft Planning Guidance was 

developed by the Biological 

Decontamination Standards Working 

Group (an interagency working group) 

of the White House National Science 

and Technology Council (NSTC) 

Subcommittee on Decontamination 

Standards and Technology (SDST). The 

SDST was tasked by the NSTC to 

develop risk management guidance for 

recovery from an incident involving 

biological contamination in a domestic, 

civilian setting. The interagency 

workgroup included participants from 

the Departments of Homeland Security, 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Energy, Labor, Health and Human 

Services and Transportation and the 

Environmental Protection Agency. This 

draft guidance describes a general risk 

management framework for government 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

41432 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 

and nongovernmental decision-makers, 

at all levels, in planning and executing 

activities required for response and 

recovery from a biological incident in a 

domestic, civilian setting. The objective 

of this guidance is to provide federal, 

state, local, and tribal decision makers 

with uniform federal guidance to protect 

the public, emergency responders, and 

surrounding environments and to 

ensure that local and federal first 

responders can prepare for an incident 

involving biological contamination. 

This document follows principles 

developed within the context of 

Planning Guidance for Protection and 

Recovery Following Radiological 

Dispersal Device (RDD) and Improvised 

Nuclear Device (IND) Incidents—which 

was published by the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) on August 

1, 2008. The RDD/IND document 

introduced the overarching concept of 

optimization. Optimization is a flexible, 

multi-attribute decision process that 

seeks to weigh many factors. 

Optimization analyses are qualitative 

and quantitative assessments applied at 

each stage of decision-making process 

from evaluation of decontamination 

options to implementation of the chosen 

alternative. 

The subject draft guidance applies to 

characterization, decontamination, 

clearance, and potential reoccupancy of 

a variety of public facilities, drinking 

water infrastructure, and open areas. 

Principal topics include the unique 

characteristics and hazards of biological 

agents, a risk management framework 

for responding to a biological incident, 

and implications for remediation 

activities. A process is provided for 

making timely and effective decisions 

despite incomplete data and 

uncertainties associated with potential 

risks posed by biological agents. This 

decision process includes all actions 

required during response to a biological 

incident beginning with notification, 

screening, and environmental sampling. 

Each step in the decision-making 

process is described, and the various 

actions are explicitly linked to 

numbered boxes in a five-page decisiontree flowchart. 

An important step in the decision 

process is setting clearance (or cleanup) 

goals for determining whether a 

remediation is successful and how the 

treated area may be used. No formula is 

available for setting clearance goals for 

biological agents. The collective, 

professional judgment of experts, 

considered within the context of the 

concerns of a broad range of local, 

regional, and federal stakeholders 

should be used to set a clearance goal 

appropriate to the site-specific 

circumstances. A practical clearance 

goal is to reduce residual risk to levels 

acceptable by employing an 

optimization process. The aim of such a 

process is to reduce exposure levels as 

low as is reasonable while considering 

potential future land uses, technical 

feasibility, costs and cost effectiveness, 

and public acceptability. After the 

remediation is carried out, a clearance 

decision is made based on a judgment 

whether the decontamination 

verification criteria and the clearance 

goals have been met. This judgment is 

based on a thorough analysis of all 

sampling, processes, and other pertinent 

data. 

This draft document focuses on the 

decision making framework in response 

to a biological event. It is designed to be 

consistent with the National Response 

Framework (Department of Homeland 

Security, January 2008) and our 

scientific understanding of the 

characteristics of biological agents. 

Neither of these areas is static. We 

expect both our response planning and 

our scientific understanding of the 

characteristics of biological agents to 

evolve over time. 

Response to Comments 

Comments will be reviewed by the 

White House National Science and 

Technology Council before this 

guidance is republished. 

Availability of the Draft Guidance 

Copies of the draft guidance are 

available for review through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket number: 

EPA–HQ–ORD–2009–0331. 

Dated: July 27, 2009. 

James Kohlenberger, 

Chief of Staff, Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, Executive Office of the 

President. 

Bradley I. Buswell, 

Undersecretary for Science and Technology 

(Acting), U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. 

Lek G. Kadeli, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Research 

and Development, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

[FR Doc. E9–19688 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S. 

[Public Notice 123] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request Marketing Fax Back 

Response Form 

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank 

invites the general public and other 

Federal Agencies to comment on the 

proposed information collection, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. The Marketing Fax Back 

Response Form will be used to collect 

basic trade information about United 

States companies. This information will 

be provided to the Export Import Bank’s 

finance consultants nationwide to assist 

in providing counsel to exporters. 

DATES: Electronic comments may be 

submitted through Regulations.Gov. 

Comments must be received on or 

before September 16, 2009 to be 

considered. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments and 

requests for additional information to 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20038. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title and Form Number: Marketing 

Fax Back Response Form EIB 05–01. 

OMB Number: 3048-. 

Type of Review: Regular. 

Need and Use: This form will provide 

basic trade information about U.S. 

Companies and will provide the Export 

Import Bank’s trade finance consultants 

nationwide the ability to provide 

counsel to exporters. 

Affected Public: The form affects 

entities involved in the export of U.S. 

goods and services. 

Estimated Annual Respondents: 

1,500. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 5 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 125 hours. 

Frequency of Reporting or Use: One 

time for registration 

Sharon A. Whitt, 

Agency Clearance Officer. 

BILLING CODE 6690–01–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES