9816 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 43 / Friday, March 6, 2009 / Notices 

II. What Should I Consider When I 

Prepare My Comments for EPA? 

You may find the following 

suggestions helpful for preparing your 

comments: 

1. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible and provide specific examples. 

2. Describe any assumptions that you 

used. 

3. Provide copies of any technical 

information and/or data you used that 

support your views. 

4. If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at the 

estimate that you provide. 

5. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns. 

6. Offer alternative ways to improve 

the collection activity. 

7. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the deadline identified 

under DATES. 

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

be sure to identify the docket ID number 

assigned to this action in the subject 

line on the first page of your response. 

You may also provide the name, date, 

and Federal Register citation. 

III. What Information Collection 

Activity or ICR Does This Action Apply 

to? 

Affected entities: Entities potentially 

affected by this ICR are companies that 

export from the United States to foreign 

countries, or that engage in wholesale 

sales of, chemical substances or 

mixtures. These entities are mostly 

chemical companies classified under 

the North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes 

325 and 32411. 

Title: Notification of Chemical 

Exports - TSCA Section 12(b). 

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0795.13, 

OMB Control No. 2070–0030. 

ICR status: This ICR is currently 

scheduled to expire on November 30, 

2009. An Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information, 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), after appearing in the Federal 

Register when approved, are listed in 40 

CFR part 9, are displayed either by 

publication in the Federal Register or 

by other appropriate means, such as on 

the related collection instrument or 

form, if applicable. The display of OMB 

control numbers for certain EPA 

regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR 

part 9. 

Abstract: Section 12(b)(2) of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires 

that any person who exports or intends 

to export to a foreign country a chemical 

substance or mixture that is regulated 

under TSCA sections 4, 5, 6 and/or 7 

submit to EPA notification of such 

export or intent to export. Upon receipt 

of notification, EPA will advise the 

government of the importing country of 

the U.S. regulatory action with respect 

to that substance. EPA uses the 

information obtained from the submitter 

via this collection to advise the 

government of the importing country. 

This information collection addresses 

the burden associated with industry 

reporting of export notifications. 

Responses to the collection of 

information are mandatory (see 40 CFR 

part 707). Respondents may claim all or 

part of a notice confidential. EPA will 

disclose information that is covered by 

a claim of confidentiality only to the 

extent permitted by, and in accordance 

with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 

and 40 CFR part 2. 

Burden statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to be 1.39 hours per response. 

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 this estimate, which is 

only briefly summarized here: 

Estimated total number of potential 

respondents: 300. 

Frequency of response: On occasion. 

Estimated total average number of 

responses for each respondent: 12. 

Estimated total annual burden hours: 

4,850 hours. 

Estimated total annual costs: 

$264,255. This includes an estimated 

burden cost of $264,255 and an 

estimated cost of $0 for capital 

investment or maintenance and 

operational costs. 

IV. Are There Changes in the Estimates 

From the Last Approval? 

There is a decrease of 2,700 hours in 

the total estimated respondent burden 

compared with that identified in the ICR 

currently approved by OMB. This 

decrease reflects the net effect of a 

decrease in the estimated number of 

notices sent to EPA and a decrease in 

the number of firms sending notices, 

based on EPA’s recent experience with 

TSCA section 12(b) notices. This change 

is an adjustment. 

V. 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. 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. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 26, 2009. 

James Jones, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 

[FR Doc. E9–4792 Filed 3–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8591–2] 

Environmental Impact Statements and 

Regulations; 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 

202–564–7167. An explanation of the 

ratings assigned to draft environmental 

impact statements (EISs) was published 

in FR dated April 6, 2008 (73 FR 19833). 

Draft EISs 

EIS No. 20080383, ERP No. D–AFS– 

B65014–VT, Deerfield WindProject, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 43 / Friday, March 6, 2009 / Notices 9817 

Application for a Land Use 

Authorization to Construct and 

Operate a Wind Energy Facility, 

Special Use AuthorizationPermit, 

Towns of Searsburg and Readsboro, 

Manchester RangerDistrict, Green 

Mountain National Forest, 

Bennington County, VT. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns with potential 

adverse impacts to the brown bear 

habitat, the range of alternatives and 

comprehensive monitoring and 

mitigation for impacts to brown bear 

and their habitat.Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20080439, ERP No. D–BLM– 

L65560–OR, John Day BasinResource 

Management Plan, To Provide 

Direction for ManagingPublic Lands 

in Central and Eastern Oregon, 

Prineville District,Grant, Wheeler, 

Gilliam, Wasco, Sherman, Umatilla, 

Jefferson andMorrow Counties, OR. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns with impacts to 

water quality and quantity, and aquatic 

and riparian resources. We recommend 

incorporating the Alternative 4 grazing 

strategy, and continuation of watershed 

analysis per Alternative 1. The finalEIS 

should further discuss management of 

Reserve ForageAllotments, and Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy related to proper 

functioning condition, management of 

livestock, and water withdrawal.Rating 

EC2. 

EIS No. 20080485, ERP No. D–SFW– 

K99040–NV, Southeastern Lincoln 

County Habitat Conservation Plan, 

Application Package for Three 

Incidental Take Permits, Authorize 

the Take of Desert Tortoise (Gopherus 

agassizii) and Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii 

extimus), Implementation, Lincoln 

County, NV. 

Summary: EPA expressed concerns 

about specific conservation measures. 

EPA requested additional information 

regarding impacts from desert tortoise 

relocation, and establishment of a 

southwestern willow flycatcher habitat 

mitigation bank.Rating EC2. 

Final EISs 

EIS No. 20080517, ERP No. F–FHW– 

C50015–NY, Kosciuszko 

BridgeProject, Propose Rehabilitation 

or Replacement a 1.1 mile 

SegmentBrooklyn-Queens Expressway 

(–278) from Morgan Avenue in 

Brooklyn and the Long Island 

Expressway (1495) in Queens, Kings 

andQueens Counties, NY. 

Summary: EPA’s previous concerns 

about air quality have been resolved; 

therefore EPA has no objections to the 

proposed action. 

EIS No. 20080525, ERP No. F–FHW– 

C40173–NJ, I–295/I–76/Route 

42Direct Connection Project, To 

Improve Traffic Safety and 

ReduceTraffic Congestion, Funding 

and U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 

404Permits, Borough of Bellmawr, 

Borough of Mount Ephraim 

andGloucester City, Camden County, 

NJ. 

Summary: EPA’s previous concerns 

about wetlands, air quality and 

stormwater management have been 

resolved; therefore EPA has no objection 

to the proposed action. 

EIS No. 20080541, ERP No. F–UPS– 

K80007–CA, Aliso Viejo 

IncomingMail Facility, Proposed 

Construction and Operation of a 

MailProcessing Facility on a 25-Acre 

Parcel, Aliso Viejo, OrangeCounty, 

CA. 

Summary: While EPA does not object 

to this project, EPA requested that the 

ROD include commitments to the 

mitigation measures discussed in the 

EIS. 

EIS No. 20090006, ERP No. F–MMS– 

B09802–00, Cape Wind EnergyProject, 

Construction, Operation and 

Maintenance, andDecommissioning of 

an Electric Generation Facility, 

Barnstable,Nantucket and Duke 

Counties, MA and Washington 

County, RI. 

Summary: EPA offered comments 

concerning the monitoring and 

mitigation component of the FEIS as 

well as air quality analysis/permitting 

and marine impacts and requested that 

MMS address all substantive comments 

received on the FEIS in the ROD and to 

coordinate closely with relevant state 

and federal agencies during its 

development. 

EIS No. 20090014, ERP No. F–NOA– 

L39065–OR, Bull Run Water Supply 

Habitat Conservation Plan, 

Application for and Incidental Take 

Permit to cover the Continued 

Operation and Maintenance, Sandy 

River Basin, City of Portland, OR. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 

EIS No. 20090015, ERP No. F–FHW– 

E40818–TN, TN–397 (Mack Hatcher 

Parkway Extension) Construction 

from US–31 (TN–6, Columbia 

Avenue) South of Franklin to US–341 

(TN–106, Hillsboro Road) North of 

Franklin, Additional Information on 

the Build Alternative (Alternative G), 

Williamson County and City of 

Franklin, TN. 

Summary: EPA’s previous concerns 

have been resolved; therefore EPA has 

no objection with the proposed action. 

Dated: March 3, 2009. 

Robert W. Hargrove, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. E9–4796 Filed 3–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8591–1] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–1399 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements 

Filed 02/23/2009 Through 02/27/2009 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

EIS No. 20090052, Draft EIS, NRS, IA, 

Clarke County Water Supply Project, 

To Construct a Multiple-Purpose 

Structure that Provides for Rural 

Water Supply and Water Based 

Recreational Opportunities, Clarke 

County, IA, Comment Period Ends: 

04/20/2009, Contact: Richard Sim 

515–284–6655. 

EIS No. 20090053, Final Supplement, 

COE, MS, Gulfport Harbor Navigation 

Channel Project, To Evaluate 

Proposed Construction of Authorized 

Improvements to the Gulfport Harbor, 

Harrison County, MS, Wait Period 

Ends: 04/06/2009, Contact: Jennifer 

Jacobson 251–690–2724. 

EIS No. 20090054, Draft EIS, AFS, NV, 

Stanislaus National Forest Motorized 

Travel Management (17305) Plan, 

Implementation, Stanislaus National 

Forest, CA, Comment Period Ends: 

05/05/2009, Contact: Sue Warren 

209–532–3671 Ext. 321. 

EIS No. 20090055, Draft EIS, AFS/BLM, 

CO, Gunnison Basin Federal Lands 

Travel Management Project, To 

Address Travel Management on 

Federal Lands within the Upper 

Gunnison Basin and North Fork 

Valley, Implementation, Gunnison, 

Delta, Hinsdale and Saguache 

Counties, CO, Comment Period Ends: 

06/03/2009, Contact: Gary S. 

Shellhorn 970–874–6666. 

The above EIS is Joint Lead Agencies 

with the U.S. Department of Interior’s 

Bureau of Land Management. 

EIS No. 20090056, Third Draft 

Supplement, TPT, CA, Presidio Trust 

Management Plan (PTMP), Updated 

Information on the Preferred 

Alternative for the Main Post District 

of the Presidio of San Francisco, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES