16386 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 

estimated to average 15 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. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: 

Refractory product manufacturers. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 8. 

Frequency of Response: Initially, 

occasionally and semiannually. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 

338. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: 

$30,344, which is comprised of: $27,304 

in labor costs, $3,040 in O&M costs, and 

no annualized capital/startup costs. 

Changes in the Estimates: There is no 

change in the estimation methodology 

for labor hours or cost to the 

respondents in this ICR compared to the 

previous ICR. This is due to two 

considerations. First, the regulations 

have not changed over the past three 

years and are not anticipated to change 

over the next three years. Secondly, the 

growth rate for respondents is very low, 

negative, or non-existent. 

The previous approved ICR renewal 

indicated 470 annual labor hours; after 

review of the burden tables, it was 

determined that the number of indicated 

hours was based on a calculation error. 

The decrease in burden is due to a 

correction in the labor hours from 470 

to 338 per year. 

Dated: April 6, 2009. 

John Moses, 

Acting Director, Collection Strategies 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–8241 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8791–3] 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) 

Supplemental Funding for Brownfields 

Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grantees 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: EPA’s Office of Brownfields 

and Land Revitalization (OBLR) plans to 

make available approximately $40 

million in Recovery Act funding to 

supplement Revolving Loan Fund 

capitalization grants previously 

awarded competitively under section 

104(k)(3) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 

9604(k)(3). Brownfields Cleanup 

Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) pilots 

awarded under section 104(d)(1) of 

CERCLA that have not transitioned to 

section 104(k)(3) grants are not eligible 

to apply for these funds. EPA will award 

these funds under the criteria described 

below only to RLF grantees who have 

demonstrated an ability to deliver 

programmatic results by making at least 

one loan or subgrant and have 

effectively utilized existing available 

loan funds (high performing RLF 

grantees). 

The Agency is now accepting requests 

for Recovery Act supplemental funding 

from high performing RLF grantees. 

Requests for funding must be submitted 

to the EPA Regional Contact (listed 

below) by May 1, 2009. Specific 

information on submitting a request for 

Recovery Act RLF supplemental 

funding can be obtained by contacting 

the EPA Regional Contact. 

DATES: This action is effective April 10, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Mailing addresses and 

contact information for U.S. EPA 

Regional Offices and U.S. EPA 

Headquarters are provided below and in 

the Recovery Act Process and 

Consideration Guidelines for RLF Grant 

Supplemental Funding. The guidelines 

are available at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

brownfields/eparecovery. Copies of the 

guidelines will also be sent upon 

request. Requests should be made by 

calling U.S. EPA’s Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response, Office of 

Brownfields and Land Revitalization, 

(202) 566–2777 or regional offices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debi 

Morey, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response, Office of 

Brownfields and Land Revitalization, 

(202) 566–2735 or the appropriate 

Brownfields Regional Contact. 

REGIONAL CONTACTS

Region States Address/phone number/e-mail 

EPA Region 1, Diane Kelley, 

Kelley.Diane@epa.gov.

CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT .......................... One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114– 

2023; Phone (617) 918–1424; Fax (617) 918–1291. 

EPA Region 2, Larry D’Andrea, 

DAndrea.Larry@epa.gov.

NJ, NY, PR, VI .......................................... 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007; Phone 

(212) 637–4314; Fax (212) 637–4360. 

EPA Region 3, Tom Stolle, 

Stolle.Tom@epa.gov.

DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV ........................ 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS51, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 19103; Phone (215) 814–3129; Fax 

(215) 814–5518. 

EPA Region 4, Wanda Jennings, Jennings.Wanda@epa.gov.AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN ............ Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 10th 

FL, Atlanta, GA 30303–8960; (404) 562–8682 (w); 

(404) 562–8439 (fax). 

EPA Region 5, Deborah Orr, 

Orr.Deborah@epa.gov.

IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI ............................. 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code SE–4J, Chicago, Illinois 60604–3507; Phone (312) 886–7576; 

Fax (312) 886–7190. 

EPA Region 6, Monica Chapa, 

Smith.Monica@epa.gov.

AR, LA, NM, OK, TX ................................ 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 (6SF–PB), Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733; Phone (214) 665–6780; Fax 

(214) 665–6660. 

EPA Region 7, Susan Klein, 

Klein.Susan@epa.gov.

IA, KS, MO, NE ........................................ 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; Phone 

(913) 551–7786; Fax (913) 551–8688. 

EPA Region 8, Ted Lanzano, 

Lanzano.Ted@epa.gov.

CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY ........................ 1595 Wynkoop Street (EPR–B), Denver, CO 80202– 

1129; Phone (303) 312–6596; Fax (303) 312–6067. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 16387 

REGIONAL CONTACTS—Continued 

Region States Address/phone number/e-mail 

EPA Region 9, Debbie Schechter, 

Schechter.Debbie@epa.gov.

AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU ........................... 75 Hawthorne Street, SFD 9–1, San Francisco, California 94105; Phone (415) 972–3093; Fax (415) 947– 

3520. 

EPA Region 10, Brooks Stanfield, Stanfield.Brooks@epa.gov.AK, ID, OR, WA ........................................ 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101; Phone 

(206) 553–4423; Fax (206) 553–0124. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 17, 2009, President 

Barack Obama signed the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Pub. L. 111–05) (Recovery Act). EPA 

received $100 million in Recovery Act 

appropriations for the CERCLA 104(k) 

Brownfields Program of which 25% 

must be used at Brownfields sites 

contaminated with petroleum. The 

Agency has allocated approximately $40 

million of Recovery Act funds for 

supplemental funding of current RLF 

grantees as authorized by CERCLA 

104(k)(4). 

Policy Changes To Expedite Effective 

Use of Recovery Act Supplemental RLF 

Funds 

RLF supplemental funding awarded 

with Recovery Act funds is not subject 

to the 20 percent cost share required by 

CERCLA 104(k)(9)(B)(iii). Further, in 

order to increase flexibility, the Agency 

will not require that RLF grantees use at 

least 60 percent of the supplemental 

funding award for loans; RLF grantees 

may use up to 100 percent of Recovery 

Act funds for either loans or subgrants. 

In addition, while EPA is still limiting 

individual subgrants to no more than 

$200,000 per site, RLF grantees may 

petition EPA to waive the $200,000 per 

site subgrant limitation, if such a waiver 

would promote the goals of the 

Recovery Act through increased job 

creation, retention, and economic 

development. 

In accordance with OMB’s February 

18, 2009, guidance for implementing the 

Recovery Act, EPA will provide 

supplemental RLF funding under new 

awards rather than through amendments 

to existing RLF grants. This will ensure 

that RLF grantees will track Recovery 

Act funds separately from RLF funds 

awarded using EPA’s annual 

appropriation for Brownfields grants. 

Process and Criteria for Awarding 

Recovery Act Funding 

EPA will consider requests for 

Recovery Act supplemental RLF 

funding from high performing RLF 

grantees that are submitted to the EPA 

regional office awarding the RLF grant 

and are postmarked and received by email by May 1, 2009. High performing 

RLF grantees must submit a new request 

for Recovery Act supplemental RLF 

funds even if the grantee has a pending 

request for Brownfields RLF 

supplemental funding under 

consideration by EPA. There is no 

maximum amount of supplemental 

funding that an RLF grantee can request 

under this notice. EPA’s Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response (AA for 

OSWER) will select recipients for RLF 

Recovery Act supplemental funding and 

the grants will be awarded by EPA 

regional award officials. EPA regional 

offices and OBLR will evaluate requests 

and make funding recommendations to 

EPA’s AA for OSWER based on the 

following criteria: 

• Demonstrated ability to make loans 

and subgrants with Recovery Act funds 

quickly (i.e., ‘‘shovel-ready’’ projects) 

for cleanups that can be started and 

completed expeditiously, 

• Demonstrated ability to use 

supplemental RLF funds in a manner 

that maximizes job creation and 

economic benefit, 

• Demonstrated ability to track and 

measure progress in creating jobs 

associated with the loans or subgrants, 

• The RLF grantee must have made at 

least one loan or subgrant AND have 

effectively utilized existing available 

loan funds, 

• Demonstrated ability to track and 

measure progress of cleanups resulting 

from a loan or subgrant, 

• Demonstrated need for 

supplemental funding, including the 

number of sites and communities that 

may benefit from supplemental funding, 

• Demonstrated ability to administer 

and ‘‘revolve’’ the RLF grant, and 

administer subgrant(s) and/or loan(s), 

• Demonstrated ability to use the RLF 

grant to address funding gaps for 

cleanup, 

• Community benefit from past and 

potential loan(s) and/or subgrant(s), 

and, 

• Demonstrated ability to use the RLF 

grant to provide funding to promote 

projects incorporating sustainable reuse 

and renewable energy. 

Priority consideration will be given to 

funding those grantees who can 

demonstrate they have shovel-ready 

projects that will expeditiously result in 

job creation and can clearly demonstrate 

how they will track and measure their 

progress in creating the jobs associated 

with the loans or subgrants. In addition, 

EPA may consider geographic 

distribution of the funds among EPA’s 

ten Regions. 

Consistent with section 104(k)(12)(B) 

of CERCLA, in making decisions on RLF 

Recovery Act supplemental funding, 

EPA will take into account the 

requirement that twenty-five percent of 

the Recovery Act appropriation for 

Brownfields grant be used at sites 

contaminated with petroleum. 

Applicants for RLF Recovery Act 

supplemental funding must specify the 

amount of funding they are requesting 

for subgrants and loans to cleanup these 

sites. States must demonstrate that their 

Governor or State legislature has agreed 

to accept Recovery Act funds as 

required by section 1607 of the 

Recovery Act. 

RLF grantees requesting supplemental 

funding should be aware that grant 

agreements will include all terms and 

conditions required by the Recovery 

Act. Under section 1604 of the Recovery 

Act, funds may not be used for any 

casino or other gambling establishment, 

zoo, golf course, or swimming pool. 

Under section 1512 of the Recovery Act, 

OMB implementing guidance and 

Agency policy, there will be additional 

reporting requirements. There may also 

be requirements under Section 1605 of 

the Recovery Act, to use American made 

iron, steel and manufactured goods for 

Recovery Act projects. Under Section 

1606 of the Recovery Act, contractors 

and subcontractors hired with Recovery 

Act funds are required to pay prevailing 

wages to laborers and mechanics in 

compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act. 

Grantees selected for Recovery Act RLF 

supplemental funding must be willing 

to comply with these requirements. 

Each grantee and sub-grantee awarded 

funds made available under the 

Recovery Act shall promptly refer to the 

Office of Inspector General any credible 

evidence that a principal, employee, 

agent, contractor, sub-grantee, 

16388 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 

subcontractor, or other person has 

submitted a false claim under the False 

Claims Act or has committed a criminal 

or civil violation of laws pertaining to 

fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, 

gratuity, or similar misconduct 

involving those funds. 

Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews: Under Executive Order 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. Because this grant action 

is not subject to notice and comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedures Act or any other statute, it 

is not subject to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or 

Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (UMRA) 

(Pub. L. 104–4). In addition, this action 

does not significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Although this action 

does not generally create new binding 

legal requirements, where it does, such 

requirements do not substantially and 

directly affect Tribes under Executive 

Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). Although this grant action does 

not have significant Federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 

EPA consulted with states in the 

development of these grant guidelines. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. This action does 

not involve technical standards; thus, 

the requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

Section 272 note) do not apply. This 

action does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Section 3501 et seq.). The 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq., generally provides that before 

certain actions may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the action must 

submit a report, which includes a copy 

of the action, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Since this grant 

action, when finalized, will contain 

legally binding requirements, it is 

subject to the Congressional Review Act, 

and EPA will submit its final action in 

its report to Congress under the Act. 

Dated: April 6, 2009. 

David R. Lloyd, 

Director, Office of Brownfields and Land 

Revitalization, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response. 

[FR Doc. E9–8240 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8592–2]. 

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 03/30/2009 Through 04/03/2009 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

EIS No. 20090097, Final Supplement, 

COE, NC, Topsail Beach Interim 

(Emergency) Beach Fill Project— 

Permit Request, Proposal to Place 

Sand on 4.7 miles of the Town’s 

Shoreline to Protect the Dune 

Complex and Oceanfront 

Development, Onslow and Pender 

Counties, NC, Wait Period Ends: 05/ 

11/2009, Contact: Dave Timpy, 910– 

251–4634. 

EIS No. 20090098, Draft EIS, NPS, WY, 

Jackson Hole Airport Use Agreement 

Extension Project, To Enable 

Continued Air Transportation 

Services, Grand Teton National Park, 

Teton County, WY, Comment Period 

Ends: 06/10/2009, Contact: Jennifer 

Carpenter, 307–739–3465. 

EIS No. 20090099, Final EIS, FHW, MT, 

US–212 Reconstruction Project, from 

Rockvale to Laurel, Proposes to 

Improve Safety for Local and Regional 

Traffic Area, Yellowstone and Carbon 

Counties, MT, Wait Period Ends: 

05/11/2009, Contact: Alan C. 

Woodmansey, P.E., 406–449–5302 

Ext. 233. 

EIS No. 20090100, Draft EIS, BLM, UT, 

Mona to Oquirrh Transmission 

Corridor Project, Construction, 

Operation, Maintenance and 

Decommissioning a Double-Circuit 

500/345 Kilovolt (kV) Transmission 

Line, Right-of-Way Grant, Rocky 

Mountain Power, Juab, Salt Lake, 

Tooele and Utah Counties, UT, 

Comment Period Ends: 07/08/2009, 

Contact: Clara Stevens, 435–743– 

3100. 

EIS No. 20090101, Draft EIS, AFS, CA, 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

South Shore Fuel Reduction and 

Healthy Forest Restoration, To 

Manage Fuel Reduction and Forest 

Health in the Wildland Urban 

Intermit (WUI), El Dorado County, 

CA, Comment Period Ends: 05/26/ 

2009, Contact: Duncan Leao, 530– 

543–2660. 

EIS No. 20090102, Draft EIS, FAA, 00, 

Programmatic—Streamlining the 

Processing of Experimental Permit 

Applications, Issuing Experimental 

Permits for the Launch and Reentry of 

Useable Suborbital Rockets, Comment 

Period Ends: 05/26/2009, Contact: 

Stacey M. Zee, 202–267–9305. 

EIS No. 20090103, Final Supplement, 

NOA, 00, Amendment 18 to the 

Fishery Management Plan, Pelagic 

Fisheries of the Western Pacific 

Region, Management Modifications 

for the Hawaii-Based Shallow-Set 

Longline Swordfish Fishery, Proposal 

to Remove Effort Limits, Eliminate the 

Set Certificate Program and 

Implement New Sea Turtle Interaction 

Caps, Wait Period Ends: 05/11/2009, 

Contact: William L. Robinson, 808– 

944–2200. 

EIS No. 20090104, Draft EIS, BIA, NY, 

Cayuga Indian Nation of New York 

Conveyance of Land into Trust 

Project, Approval of a 125+ Acre FeeTo-Trust Property Transfer of Seven 

Separate Parcels Located in the 

Village of Union Springs and Town of 

Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga 

County and the Town of Seneca Falls 

in Seneca County, NY, Comment 

Period Ends: 05/26/2009, Contact: 

Kurt G. Chandler, 615–564–6832. 

EIS No. 20090105, Draft EIS, AFS, MT, 

Lower West Fork Project, To Treat 

Units in and Adjacent to the 

Wildland-Urban-Interface (WUI) With 

Prescribed Fire, and Commercial and 

Pre-Commercial Thins, West Fork 

Ranger District, Bitterroot National 

Forest, Ravalli County, MT, Comment 

Period Ends: 05/26/2009, Contact: 

Dave Campbell, 406–821–3269. 

EIS No. 20090106, Draft EIS, AFS, SD, 

Slate Castle Project Area, Proposes To 

Implement Multiple Resource 

Management Actions, Mystic Ranger 

District, Black Hills National Forest, 

Pennington County, SD, Comment 

Period Ends: 05/26/2009, Contact: 

Katie Van Alstyne, 605–343–1567. 

EIS No. 20090107, Second Draft 

Supplement, NRS, WV, Lost River 

Subwatershed of the Potomac River 

Watershed Project, Construction of 

Site 16 on Lower Cove Run and 

Deletion of Site 23 on Cullers Run in 

the Lost River Watershed, Change in 

Purpose for Site 16 and Updates 

Information Relative to Site 23, U.S. 

Army COE Section 404 Permit, Hardy