Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 175 / Friday, September 11, 2009 / Notices 46767 

years. This cyclical evaluation is 

referred to as the ‘‘Six-Year Review of 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations’’ or simply, the ‘‘Six-Year 

Review’’. Through the Six-Year Review 

process, the EPA reviews and assesses 

risks to human health posed by 

regulated drinking water contaminants. 

EPA completed and published review 

results for the first Six-Year Review 

cycle (1996–2002) on July 18, 2003 (68 

FR 42908). The occurrence assessments 

conducted for the first Six-Year Review 

were based on compliance monitoring 

data from 1993 to 1997, which were 

provided by States. 

EPA expects to complete and publish 

the review results for the second SixYear Review cycle (2003–2009) in the 

near future. The occurrence assessments 

conducted for the second Six-Year 

Review are based on data collected 

between 1998 and 2005 and voluntarily 

submitted by States and other primacy 

agencies under the current Information 

Collection Request (ICR No. 2231.01, 71 

FR 32340). 

EPA’s Office of Water is renewing the 

current ICR and requesting that States 

and other primacy agencies voluntarily 

provide historical compliance 

monitoring (contaminant occurrence) 

data for community water systems 

(CWSs) and non-transient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) 

to the Agency. The Agency is requesting 

contaminant occurrence data and 

treatment technique data collected from 

2006 to 2012 for all regulated chemical, 

radiological and microbial contaminants 

to support the Agency’s future Six-Year 

Reviews. This collection request is the 

same as the current ICR (ICR No. 

2231.01, 71 FR 32340) regarding data 

type and duration (i.e., same number of 

years). However, the Agency will be 

increasing the scope to request data 

collected for several additional rules 

(e.g., the Surface Water Treatment 

Rules, the Disinfectants and 

Disinfection By Product Rules, the 

Ground Water Rule) that are not 

reflected in the current ICR. 

The compliance monitoring records in 

this information collection (including 

all results for analytical detections and 

non-detections) provide the data needed 

to conduct statistical estimates of 

national occurrence for regulated 

contaminants and evaluate the 

treatment technique information 

associated with control of pathogens, 

disinfectants, and disinfection 

byproducts. These national occurrence 

estimates and treatment technique 

information will support the SDWA 

section 1412(b)(9) mandate that requires 

the Agency to review the existing 

NPDWRs and determine whether 

revisions are appropriate. In addition, 

SDWA section 1445(g) requires the 

Agency to maintain a national drinking 

water contaminant occurrence database 

(i.e., the National Contaminant 

Occurrence Data (NCOD)) using 

occurrence data for both regulated and 

unregulated contaminants in public 

water systems (PWSs). This data 

collection will provide new occurrence 

data on regulated contaminants to 

maintain the NCOD. 

It is in the interest of the Agency to 

minimize the burden on States (and 

other primacy agencies) by allowing 

submission of data in virtually any 

electronic format, and to provide States 

that use the Safe Drinking Water 

Information System State Versions 

(SDWIS/State) with extraction scripts if 

wanted. 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to average 12.2 hours per 

State. Burden means the total time, 

effort, or financial resources expended 

by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 

or disclose or provide information to or 

for a Federal agency. This includes the 

time needed to review instructions; 

develop, acquire, install, and utilize 

technology and systems for the purposes 

of collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements which have subsequently 

changed; train personnel to be able to 

respond to a collection of information; 

search data sources; complete and 

review the collection of information; 

and transmit or otherwise disclose the 

information. 

The ICR provides a detailed 

explanation of the Agency’s estimate, 

which is only briefly summarized here: 

Estimated total number of potential 

respondents: 56. 

Frequency of response: One time only. 

Estimated total average number of 

responses for each respondent: 1. 

Estimated total annual burden hours: 

681 hours. 

Estimated total annual costs: $30,608. 

This includes an estimated burden cost 

of $30,608 and an estimated cost of $0 

for capital investment or maintenance 

and operational costs. 

It should be additionally noted that 

the values above should be considered 

estimated values and are from the 

current ICR approved by OMB. These 

values may change in part due to the 

scope modification; however, it is not 

expected to be significant. 

Are There Changes in the Estimates 

From the Last Approval? 

There is a potential for the estimated 

total cost to change compared with that 

identified in the ICR currently approved 

by OMB. The change will reflect the 

slight modification of the scope, revised 

burden hours, and updated labor costs. 

While the increase in the scope may 

increase the annual burden hour, the 

data extraction tool that assists States 

using SDWIS/State and the increased 

number of States utilizing this database 

(from those in the previous ICR) may 

likely minimize the increased annual 

burden hours. The anticipated burden 

hours could also decrease from that in 

the currently approved ICR based on 

feedback from the States about the 

actual number of hours utilized when 

States or primacy agencies chose to use 

the data extraction tool or load the data 

onto a secure website. The increase in 

labor costs, since the previous ICR, may 

increase the annual burden; however, it 

is anticipated that it will not be 

significant. Therefore, with the scope 

modification, revised burden hours, and 

updated labor costs, the change in the 

estimated annual costs may not be 

significant. 

What Is the Next Step in the Process for 

This ICR? 

EPA will consider the comments 

received and amend the ICR as 

appropriate. The final ICR package will 

then be submitted to OMB for review 

and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 

1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue 

another Federal Register notice 

pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to 

announce the submission of the ICR to 

OMB and the opportunity to submit 

additional comments to OMB. If you 

have any questions about this ICR or the 

approval process, please contact the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Dated: September 2, 2009. 

Cynthia C. Dougherty, 

Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking 

Water. 

[FR Doc. E9–21941 Filed 9–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0192; FRL–8435–2] 

Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; 

Receipt of Application; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
46768 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 175 / Friday, September 11, 2009 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s 

receipt of an application 56228–EUP– 

UN from U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) requesting 

an experimental use permit (EUP) for 

the chemical Mammalian Gonadotropin 

Releasing Hormone (GnRH). The 

Agency has determined that the permit 

may be of regional and national 

significance. Therefore, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency is 

soliciting comments on this application. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0192, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington,VA. Deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009– 

0192. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

hours of operation of this Docket 

Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Autumn Metzger, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–5314; e-mail address: 

metzger.autumn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of interest to those persons who are or 

may be required to conduct testing of 

chemical substances under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 

or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since 

other entities may also be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD-ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD-ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their 

location, cultural practices, or other 

factors, may have atypical or 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health impacts or environmental 

effects from exposure to the pesticide(s) 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 175 / Friday, September 11, 2009 / Notices 46769 

II. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

Under section 5 of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 

136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to 

field test pesticides under development. 

Manufacturers are required to obtain an 

EUP before testing new pesticides or 

new uses of pesticides if they conduct 

experimental field tests on 10 acres or 

more of land or one acre or more of 

water. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the 

Agency has determined that the 

following EUP application may be of 

regional and national significance, and 

therefore is seeking public comment on 

the EUP application: 

Submitter: USDA’s APHIS, (56228– 

EUP–UN). 

Pesticide Chemical: Mammalian 

Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone 

(GnRH). 

Summary of Request: USDA’s APHIS, 

is requesting an EUP of GonaCon, an 

Immunocontraceptive Vaccine, 

containing the active ingredient GnRH, 

to investigate the efficacy of 

reproductive control, physiological sideeffects and reproductive and social 

behavior on overabundant feral horses 

(Equus cabalus) in the Theodore 

Roosevelt National Park in North 

Dakota. The proposed EUP program 

would be initiated in October and 

November 2009, during which time 

study horses will be vaccinated and 

released and then monitored for 

approximately 5 years. Approximately 

28 mares will be vaccinated with 2.0 

milliliter (ml) solution, which is 

equivalent to .06 ml active ingredient 

per horse or 1.68 ml active ingredient 

total for the study. The total area of the 

park consists of 19,000 hectares (ha) 

(∼46,950 acres), however the area where 

the study will be conducted will be 

much smaller than this as the horses 

only inhabit the south unit of the park. 

North Dakota will be the only state in 

which the proposed program will be 

conducted. 

A copy of the application and any 

information submitted is available for 

public review in the docket established 

for this EUP application as described 

under ADDRESSES. 

Following the review of the 

application and any comments and data 

received in response to this solicitation, 

EPA will decide whether to issue or 

deny the EUP request, and if issued, the 

conditions under which it is to be 

conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will 

be announced in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, 

Experimental use permits. 

Dated: September 2, 2009. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–21898 Filed 9–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8597–3] 

Environmental Impact Statements 

andRegulations; Availability of EPA 

Comments 

Availability of EPA comments 

prepared pursuant to the Environmental 

Review Process (ERP), under section 

309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act as amended. Requests for 

copies of EPA comments can be directed 

to the Office of Federal Activities at 

202–564–7146. 

An explanation of the ratings assigned 

to draft environmental impact 

statements (EISs) was published in FR 

dated July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34754). 

Draft EISs 

EIS No. 20090208, ERP No. D–FHW– 

F40449–IL, Illinois 336 Corridor 

Project (Federal Aid Primary Route 

315), Proposed Macomb Bypass in 

McDonough County, to I–474 west of 

Peoria in Peoria County, Funding, 

McDonough, Fulton and Peoria 

Counties, IL 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about wetland, 

floodplain, air quality, and upland 

forest impacts. EPA also requested 

additional information on traffic levels. 

Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090237, ERP No. D–UMC– 

E11070–NC, U.S. Marine Corps Grow 

the Force at MCB Camp Lejeune, 

MCAS New River, and MCAS Cherry 

Point, To Provide the Infrastructure 

To Support the Permanent Increases 

at these three Installations, U.S. Army 

Corps Section 404 and 10 Permits, 

City of Jacksonville, NC 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about aquatic 

habitat, wetland, and water quality 

impacts. EPA recommended that the 

USMC consider a hybrid alternative to 

minimize impacts to wetlands and other 

jurisdictional waters. Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090239, ERP No. D–AFS– 

L65574–OR, Big Summit Allotment 

Management Plan, Proposes to 

Reauthorize Cattle Term Grazing 

Permits, Construct Range 

Improvements, and Restore Riparian 

Vegetation on Five Allotments, 

Lookout Mountain Ranger District, 

Ochoco National Forest, Crook 

County, OR 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about impacts 

to water quality within creeks that are 

already on the Oregon State’s 303(d) list 

and subsequent impacts to aquatic 

resources. Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090242, ERP No. D–IBR– 

K39118–CA, Delta-Mendota Canal/ 

California Aqueduct Intertie Project, 

Construction and Operation of a 

Pumping Plant and Pipeline 

Connection, San Luis Delta-Mendota 

Water Authority Project, Central 

Valley Project, Alameda and San 

Joaquin Counties, CA 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about water 

supply reliability and the ability to meet 

water delivery targets. EPA 

recommended the FEIS describe efforts 

to better align contract obligations with 

existing and future water supplies; and 

explore reduced inflow and export 

scenarios. Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090252, ERP No. D–NPS– 

D65041–DC, White-Tailed Deer 

Management Plan, To Develop a 

White-Tailed Deer Management Plan 

that Supports Long-Term Protection, 

Preservation and Restoration of Native 

Vegetation and other Natural and 

Cultural Resources in Rock Creek 

Park, Washington, DC 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

proposed project, but recommends that 

the project team continue to work with 

other agencies regarding deer 

management issues. Rating LO. 

Final EISs 

EIS No. 20090258, ERP No. F–FRC– 

E05104–00, Catawba-Wateree 

Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 

2232), Application for Hydroelectric 

License, Catawba and Wateree Rivers 

in Burke, McDowell, Caldwell, 

Catawba, Alexander, Iredell, 

Mecklenburg, Lincoln and Gaston 

Counties, NC and York, Lancaster, 

Chester, Fairfield and Kershaw 

Counties, SC 

Summary: EPA continues to have 

environmental concerns about impacts 

to aquatic species in the Catawba River 

below the Bridgewater development. 

EIS No. 20090260, ERP No. F–COE– 

G39049–TX, Calhoun Port 

Authority’s, Proposed Matagorda Ship 

Channel Improvement Project to 

Widen and Deepen Berthing 

Facilities, U.S. Army COE Section 10 

and 404 Permits, Calhoun and 

Matagorda Counties, TX 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 


cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES