Availability of Draft “Planning Guidance for Recovery Following Biological Incidents”, 41431-41432 [E9-19688]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Notices 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 the636megawatt 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. VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:55 Aug 14, 2009 Jkt 217001 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, PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 41431 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: https:// 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 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1 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, VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:55 Aug 14, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 https:// 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 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S. [Public Notice 123] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request Marketing Fax Back Response Form Export-Import Bank of the U.S. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: 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 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM 17AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41431-41432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19688]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: 
https://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

[[Page 41432]]

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 decision-tree 
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 
https://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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.