[Federal Register: January 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 17)]
[
Notices]
[Page 4556-4559]
[DOCID:fr25ja08-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771, FRL-8521-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector Questionnaire (New),
EPA ICR Number 2291.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a
proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This is a request for a new collection.
Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is
soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, data and information for the Coalbed
Methane Extraction Sector Questionnaire, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OW-2006-0771, by one of the following methods:
    (1) http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    (2) E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0771.
    (3) Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771. Please include a total of 3 copies.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be
made.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
0771. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online 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 through
regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. The federal 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
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 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 public docket and made available on the Internet. 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 index at
http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 electronically at http://
www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA

Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-
1014 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Select appropriate entities to receive the questionnaire in
terms of what units (e.g., well, operator) should be surveyed; how many
should be surveyed; and the criteria used to select them;
    (iv) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (v) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

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. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. 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.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
operators of coalbed methane extraction activities.
    Title: Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector Questionnaire (New).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 2291.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW.
    ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
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 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 in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR Part 9.
    Abstract: The Clean Water Act (CWA) directs EPA to develop
regulations, called effluent guidelines, to limit the amount of
pollutants that are discharged to surface waters or to sewage treatment
plants. Coalbed methane (CBM) extraction activities accounted for about
10 percent of the total U.S. natural gas production in 2004 and are
expanding in multiple basin across the U.S. EPA's effluent guidelines
do not currently regulate pollutant discharges from CBM extraction
operations.
    CBM extraction requires removal of large amounts of water from
underground coal seams before CBM can be released. CBM wells have a
distinctive production cycle characterized by an early stage when large
amounts of water are produced to reduce reservoir pressure which in
turn encourages release of gas; a stable stage when quantities of
produced gas increase as the quantities of produced water decrease; and
a late stage when the amount of gas produced declines and water
production remains low. Pollutants often found in these wastewaters
include chloride, sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium,
magnesium, ammonia, and arsenic.
    EPA identified the CBM sector as a candidate for a detailed study
in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71 FR 76656;
December 21, 2006) and also identified that it would develop an
industry questionnaire to support this detailed study and would seek
OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). EPA is conducting
this review to determine if it would be appropriate to conduct a
rulemaking to revise the effluent guidelines for the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR 435) to control pollutants
discharged in CBM produced water. EPA also noticed it will conduct an
ICR in the preliminary 2008 Plan (72 FR 61343; October 30, 2007). For
each industrial sector, EPA's planning process considers four factors:
Pollutants discharged, current and potential pollution prevention and
control technology options, growth and economic affordability, and
implementation and efficiency considerations of revising existing
effluent guidelines or publishing new effluent guidelines. EPA will use
this ICR to collect technical and economic information from a wide
range of CBM operations to address these factors in greater detail than
previously (e.g., geographical and geologic differences in the
characteristics of CBM produced waters, environmental data, current
regulatory controls, availability and affordability of treatment
technology options). See final 2006 Plan (71 FR 76666). Response to the
questionnaire is mandatory for recipients and EPA will administer the
questionnaire using its authority under section 308 of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. 1318.
    In 2007, EPA worked with a range of stakeholders (e.g., industry
representatives; Federal, State, and Tribal representatives; public
interest groups and landowners; and water treatment experts) to obtain
the best available information on the industry and its CBM produced
water management practices. EPA developed its outreach sequentially
starting with teleconferences and continued afterwards with a series of
meetings and site visits in the major CBM basins. In total EPA
contacted over 700 people in eight states during the 63 outreach and
data collection activities in 2007 and early 2008 (e.g., meetings,
teleconferences, site visits). See DCN 05354. This outreach helped
facilitate the development of the draft ICR as EPA incorporated data,
comments, and suggestions from industry and other stakeholders into the
questionnaire design prior to this Federal Register notice.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 163
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 EPA burden estimate is based on the number of entities
receiving the questionnaire. To reduce the questionnaire burden, EPA
intends to select a statistical random sample of entities within the
CBM industry. The resulting sample will minimize both the burden to
respondents in completing the questionnaire and to the Agency in
managing and effectively utilizing the data and information supplied by
respondents.
    EPA is soliciting comments on its assumptions for the burden
estimate and its approach to selecting entities for the questionnaire.
EPA is primarily interested in collecting information from ``projects''
but has used state data on CBM wells for developing the burden
estimates. For purposes of the data collection, EPA is defining a CBM
project to be comprised of a well, group of wells, lease, group of
leases, or recognized unit operated as an economic unit when making
production decisions. (EPA recognizes that industry has multiple
definitions for the term ``project.'') One reason that EPA is most
interested in economic and technical data at the project-level, in
addition to well specific data, is because EPA has observed that most
projects handle the produced water in a single water management system.
EPA also is interested in information about the operator of each
project. The operator is the firm or division (if a profit center) that
is responsible for management and the day-to-day operation of a
project. This operator is generally a working-interest owner or a
company under contract to the working interest

owner(s). The working-interest owner bears the costs of exploration,
development, and operation of the property and, in return, is entitled
to a share of the mineral production from the property or to a share of
the proceeds there from.
    Although EPA's primary interest is about projects and operators,
this notice assumes that wells are the ``entities'' because complete
lists of wells are readily available. Complete lists are essential in
statistically selecting random samples of populations. EPA considers
its current list of wells to be relatively complete. It has used
licensed database information on historic well production from HPDI,
Inc. HPDI, Inc. compiles information from nearly all of the oil and gas
producing states and provides detailed data in a consistent format to
clients accessed through a Web-based query system. This information
includes well identification information (such as API number, lease
name and number, well name and number, operator name, location, basin
designation, field, and reservoir/producing formation), historic
production information (including summary information on first
production, last production, cumulative production, and last 12 months
production as well as detailed information on year-by-year production),
status information (active/inactive), and operator contact information
(where available). EPA has supplemented this information with
information publicly available from States. From these sources, EPA
estimates that approximately 400 operators maintain over 43,000 wells
that were active CBM producers in the U.S. as of mid-2007.
    In estimating the burden, EPA has assumed that each operator would
answer certain questions only once, regardless of the number of its
wells in the sample. For purposes of estimating the burden, EPA also
assumed that each well is equivalent to a single project; however,
operators will only be required to respond to the project-level
questions once per project, regardless of the number of wells selected
from the project. EPA's burden estimate assumes that the statistical
selection of the wells will result in approximately 400 operators to be
selected. EPA further estimates that the operators will be required to
provide information for approximately 2,000 projects.
    EPA solicits comments and supporting information that would allow
it to evaluate alternative methods of selecting the random sample that
will reduce the overall burden. First, EPA solicits information about
publicly available data sources that would permit EPA to assign wells
to individual projects so that it could select fewer entities.
    Second, EPA solicits comments on approaches to obtaining project
information from non-public sources. For example, one approach might be
for EPA to conduct a two-phase questionnaire that would require all
operators to complete a short questionnaire (``screener'') that
identifies all of the projects and links the wells to each project ID.
After receiving the results, EPA would statistically select a random
sample of projects to receive a detailed questionnaire. In order to use
this approach, EPA would require operators to return the completed
screeners within a short period of time (e.g., 30 days), thereby
lengthening the study schedule by a minimum of three months (assuming
it takes EPA a month to process the completed screener results and
another month to draw a representative sample and distribute the
detailed questionnaire). EPA solicits comments on the two-phase
approach and whether the assignment of all wells to projects is
relatively easy for operators. EPA also solicits comment on other
approaches that would provide information to assign wells to projects.
    Third, EPA solicits comments on ways to reduce the burden to
operators with many wells and still collect information in a manner
that will allow for appropriate statistical inferences to be drawn from
responses. Under the current assumptions, large operators may be
required to respond for many wells, thus resulting in a relatively
large burden for them. EPA also is concerned that it would be
collecting more information than necessary to characterize practices by
the operator. To reduce burden, one approach might be for operators to
select the wells using criteria specified by EPA. EPA is interested in
comments about the appropriate number of wells and selection criteria.
    Fourth, EPA solicits comments on stratification variables to use in
selecting the random sample. Existing information about the industry
can be used to improve the questionnaire design and the precision
estimates. One common technique is to use publicly available
information to group similar entities together into mutually exclusive
strata. Then, by selecting entities from each stratum to participate in
the questionnaire, it ensures that the sample will include entities
that have the various characteristics that are represented by the
different strata. However, increasing the number of stratification
variables also increases the number of entities selected and the
overall burden. EPA is considering stratifying by basin, state, and
operator size (e.g., small, large). Incorporating each additional
variable in a statistical design will provide more information about
the industry; however, more entities must be selected to provide
statistically representative results. EPA solicits comments on whether
all variables (e.g., basin, state, operator size as defined by total
CBM production) are necessary and whether it also should consider other
variables (e.g., type of coal seams and geology, maturity of CBM
projects as defined by start date).
    Fifth, EPA solicits comments on the extent to which the sample
design should consider location of the CBM projects within a basin. EPA
recognizes that location of the CBM project may result in wells being
operated differently within each basin due to different produced water
characteristics, geology, and available management options. EPA also
recognizes that state requirements can impact the well operations and
finances. EPA current statistical design selects wells at random within
each basin, and can be easily modified to select wells within states.
Because stratification is intended to distinguish between large groups,
and thus, may not be the best statistical choice to distinguish between
geographic locations, EPA also is researching an area-based design that
uses location clusters of wells formed within the known basins, as well
as within states. EPA then would randomly select clusters of wells. For
each selected location cluster, EPA would require that the operators of
the wells to provide information about all of their projects that fall
within the cluster. Cluster sampling generally results in a higher
burden because more entities must be selected (initial estimates range
from 1.4 to ten times more), however, it will allow for more geographic
and geologic representation. EPA solicits comments on the extent that
basins and states should be considered within the statistical design.
EPA further solicits comments on the extent to which statistical design
should consider other geographic and geology features.
    Sixth, since the industry is constantly adding new wells, EPA's
questionnaire needs to incorporate industry changes between the time
the data were collected and end of the study. This may require
additional entities to be selected for the questionnaire. EPA solicits
comments on the extent to which industry growth should be considered in
selecting the entities for the questionnaire.

    Finally, EPA will also use the questionnaire to collect data to
evaluate potential impacts to small businesses that might occur due to
alternative produced water management options. To minimize burden, the
only information requested at the ultimate parent company level, if
different from the level at which detailed financial information is
provided, is employment and revenue data. EPA solicits comment on
alternative survey questions to collect data for EPA's small business
analyses.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 400.
    Frequency of response: One-time.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
One.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 65,100 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $2,839,000. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $2,815,000 and an estimated cost of $24,000
for operational costs (photocopying and postage).

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: January 17, 2008.
Ephraim S. King,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
 [FR Doc. E8-1344 Filed 1-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                             SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.  IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

       Title of the Information Collection.
Contractor Conflicts of Interest (Renewal)
EPA ICR 1550.11, OMB Control No. 2030-0023

       Short Characterization/Abstract.
The collection of this information is required to ensure that the Agency can effectively identify, evaluate, and take appropriate action concerning contractor conflicts of interest (COI). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contractors are required to disclose any actual or potential COI with regard to their employees, corporate affiliations, and business relationships. Contractors will be required to maintain a database of business relationships and report information to EPA on either an annual basis or when work is ordered under an Agency contract. Additionally, under some contracts, the contractor must request written approval from the contracting officer to enter into a proposed contract subject to the restrictions of EPA's Limitation of Future Contracting Clause that can found at CFR 48 1552.209-74.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the previous ICR with no terms of clearance.

2.  NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

Need/Authority for the Collection
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.5, requires contracting officers to analyze acquisitions to identify and evaluate potential COI, and to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate significant COI before contract award.  EPA's information collection is required to fulfill the requirements of the FAR, protect the Government's interests at contract award, and ensure this protection extends throughout the performance of Agency contracts.

FAR Subpart 2.1 states organizational conflict of interest means "that because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the person's objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage." Depending on the contract terms, EPA requires the contractor to either certify annually or certify each time work is ordered under the contract that to the best of the Contractor's knowledge and belief, all actual or potential organizational COI have been reported to EPA. If the contractor cannot so certify, the firm must provide a disclosure statement describing all relevant information concerning any past, present, or planned interests bearing on whether it may have a COI. The contracting officer and advisers will use this information to evaluate potential conflicts and to determine the appropriate action necessary to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the disclosed conflict.

 Practical Utility/Users of the Data
EPA staff will use the COI plan and certifications as a means to ensure contractors are complying with EPA's requirements for detecting and avoiding conflicts of interest. If contractors submit a certification stating they have no conflicts of interest, the contracting officer reviews the certificate and retains the information in the official contract file.  If contractors disclose information showing they have an actual or potential COI the contracting officers and advisers (subject matter or technical experts, legal advisors, and procurement analysts) carefully review and analyze the disclosure to determine the appropriate course of action.

Contracting officers document their determinations in the official contract file where they also retain the original information collected.

In general, the information collected and the determinations made will be used by the Agency to ensure that contractors and the EPA are adequately addressing COI concerns, and that the Agency is making determinations consistent with the exercise of common sense, good judgment, and sound discretion to protect its programs.

3.  NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS & OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

 Non-Duplication
The collection of information is not duplicative of information otherwise accessible to the Agency. The data is unique to each firm's contract or order for work under a contract and is not available from any other source. EPA provisions have the same general objectives of identifying, mitigating and avoiding COI as FAR Subpart 9.5. However, unlike the FAR, the EPA provisions include reporting and certification requirements to ensure that actual and potential conflicts of interest are reviewed not only prior to contract award, but also during the period of contract performance and after contract performance to ensure enforcement actions are not prejudiced. This is the only way that EPA can evaluate whether a contractor's work efforts, which may be initiated during the EPA contract performance period or in some cases, after contract completion, may present an unacceptable risk to the Agency.

 Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB
A notice to renew this information collection was posted to the Federal Register on March 2, 2018. Five comments were received; none were relevant to subject matter of the ICR.

 Consultations
For this ICR, consultations were conducted with the following EPA contractors who provide information under EPA's COI disclosure requirements. In order to obtain the most accurate data, the sample included both a small and a large firm.

The firms contacted are:

Name
Phone
Affiliation
Dalton Stupack
509-578-3150
Leidos Innovation Corp., Lrg Bus
Vijay Mallepalli
409-983-4575
Chemtex, Small Business

      The process each firm used for tracking contract work, reviewing the scope of work, and certifying there are no conflicts or disclosing the nature of an actual or potential conflict were virtually identical.  The amount of effort involved varied on the size of the business, the number of affiliates, and the amount of contracting they do.

 Effects of Less Frequent Collection
EPA is unable to further reduce this requirement without handicapping its ability to ensure that contractors do not work in areas where their objectivity may be impaired, or where their actions may adversely affect enforcement actions or cost recovery from polluters.

 General Guidelines
This ICR does not exceed any of the OMB guidelines found 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

 Confidentiality
Some of the information submitted in response to our information request is confidential business information (CBI).  The Agency will protect CBI from release, and will disclose it only to the extent consistent with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Agency regulations, and the contract terms.

This information collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1978 and OMB Circular A-108, as revised and incorporated into OMB Circular A-130.

 Sensitive Questions
We have identified no sensitive questions in this collection.

4.   THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

 Respondents/SIC Codes
The respondents represent a variety of industries such as: remediation services (NAICS #562910); environmental consulting services (NAICS #541620); engineering services (NAICS #541330); research and development (NAICS #541712); administrative management and general management consulting services (NAICS #541611); and computer related services (NAICS #541519).

 Information Requested
         Data items, including recordkeeping requirements
Data to be collected includes: (1) certification on either an annual basis or when work is ordered that conflicts have been disclosed or that none exist; (2) disclosure of actual and potential conflicts of interest under the contract; and (3) requests for authorization to enter into a certain future contract work, cited in the "Limitation of Future Contracting Clause" in the applicable contract.

The recordkeeping requirements associated with this request include corporate recordkeeping consistent with a contractor's system for identifying, mitigating, and preventing conflicts of interest as described in its COI plan submitted to EPA. This COI recordkeeping includes maintaining a database of corporate clients and contracts in order to identify potential conflicts and maintain records of disclosures of conflicts to demonstrate compliance with a contractor's COI plan. NOTE: The term "database" as used in this section includes any system which permits a contractor to search its records for COI and may be manual or automated. The critical function of any database is that it gives the respondent the capability to identify any past, present, and future work which may be in conflict.

         Respondent Activities
Properly responding to EPA's COI disclosure requests requires the contractor to first maintain a list of all current contracts they are working under and the nature of the work they are performing under the contract. Then, the contractor must analyze interrelations between the work the firm will be performing under the current contract and any work performed under other contracts to understand whether the new work would cause the contractor to be unable to render impartial assistance or advice to EPA, impair the firm's objectivity, or give the firm an unfair competitive advantage.  If the firm discovers no conflicts of interest, then it certifies this fact to the contracting officer. If the firm discovers an actual or potential problem, then the facts of the situation will be reported to the contracting officer for his or her response.  The steps involved in this process would include:

 Create information; ("Customary and usual Business Practices" (CBP* = 50%)
 prepare COI plan
 Gather information; (CBP = 80%)
 create a database
 Process, compile, and review information; (CBP = 80%)
 search database and records and
 maintain records
 Identify a potential COI; (CBP = 10%)
 make decision and notify EPA contracting officer
 Complete written forms or other paperwork; (CBP = 10%)
 prepare annual certification, or
 prepare certification when work is ordered
 Request approval to enter a future contract that may have a COI. (CBP = 0%)

         * "Customary and usual business practice" (CBP) means efforts that are part of a company's day to day work efforts and are not unique to their contracts with EPA. The percentages identified above were based on analysis of interviews with Agency contractors, Agency contracting staff, and historical data on handling COI.

5.   THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

 Agency Activities
The Agency anticipates performing the information collection activities listed below, in conjunction with COI requirements. (See 6(b) for calculations of the Agency's cost estimates.)

 Analyzing the contract scope and inserting appropriate COI clauses in contracts;
 Collecting COI certifications or disclosures, or requests to review future contracts from the contractor;
 When a conflict is disclosed or a request for a future contract is made, analyzing the information provided and determining the appropriate measures to avoid, neutralize or mitigate the conflict; and
 Filing certifications of no conflict or documenting action on potential COI disclosures in the contract file.

 Collection Methodology and Management
After conducting extensive market research, the Contracting Officer (CO) makes the determination whether a COI plan and clauses will be required from the responding contractors.  The CO has responsibility for collecting, reviewing, and making COI determinations. Information is collected through specific COI related provisions and clauses for Superfund Programs and other requirements that provide contractors with directions on what they need to submit to the Agency depending on the work to be performed. Not all contracts will have the same COI clauses. The information and determinations will be filed in the specific contract files as the official record of the Agency decision. Most respondents will prepare their submissions electronically. Submissions are accepted in any format so long as the required information is provided.

 Small Entity Flexibility
Based on fiscal year 2015, 2016, and 2017 figures, approximately 40% of the Agency's contracts are awarded to small businesses. Only the minimum information necessary to ensure that conflicts of interest do not exist is requested. Because the information requested is vital to monitoring contractor performance under Agency contracts, separate or simplified procedures cannot be developed for small businesses.

EPA considered alternatives to the information collection, such as establishing different compliance or reporting requirements or simplifying the requirements for small entities. EPA also considered exempting small entities from all or part of the rule. However, separate or further simplified requirements are not practical, because the stated objectives cannot be met under such alternatives. An undisclosed COI poses the same risk to EPA whether it is a conflict involving a large or small business contractor. EPA believes the information collection, along with other established internal controls within the Agency, will prevent conflicts of interest that may jeopardize future actions.

 Collection Schedule
Depending on the type of contract, this information collection requires contractors to certify, either annually or for individual work orders, that they have no COI. If the contractor detects an actual or potential conflict, then the firm must disclose the nature of the conflict. The annual certification requirement is possible where the nature of the work the contractor is performing is sufficiently known in advance to allow certifying for an entire year.  More frequently, EPA requires its contractors to certify or disclose with each order for work under the contract. This requirement, for reporting when specific work is ordered, is essential under contracts with a wide scope where it is not possible to know in advance the exact type of work needed or the exact location the work will be performed. For example, most Superfund contracts are performed at multiple sites and there is little or no advance notice of where such work will be assigned because of changing cleanup priorities.  Therefore, a contractor is in a better position to identify its conflicts or potential conflicts when work is ordered, as compared to when the basic contract is awarded.

There is also no set schedule for submission of requests for authorization to enter into a contract for non-EPA work cited in the "Limitation of Future Contracting Clause." This clause identifies outside work that could pose a significant COI with work performed for EPA and may impair EPA contractor performance or harm enforcement actions. These requests are required to be submitted to the contracting officer if and when a contractor wants to request authorization to enter into such high-risk contracts.  Such requests are essential in order to provide EPA with the opportunity to protect its enforcement actions from an unacceptable risk of prejudice before it occurs.  This is essential to protecting the Government interests.

6.  ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

 Estimating Respondent Burden
Respondent burden in complying with the COI information collection is broken down into the following tasks.  Each task will be separately summarized and addressed in subsequent section of Part 6.

 Prepare COI Plan (one-time burden)
 Create a Database (one-time burden)
 Storage and Maintenance of Records (recurring burden)
 Search Data Base Records for Possible COI (recurring burden)
 Identify Potential COI, Record Decision, and Notify EPA (recurring burden)
 Request Approval for Future Contract (recurring)

      Onetime costs, such as COI plan development and creation of a database will only be incurred by contractors and subcontractors who have never contracted with EPA.

       Although the information collection requirements for small and large business are the same, EPA's consultations with small businesses confirmed that the workload is generally less for small businesses because they have less complex organizational structures, fewer contracts, and less data to maintain and search than large businesses.

      While the overall makeup of EPA contracts is 40% small business and 60% large business; it is difficult to accurately predict how that split will apply to respondents for this ICR.  As mentioned, the COI process is more cumbersome for large businesses because they have more contracts and more business relationships. Therefore, they are also more likely to have a COI than a small business. Given the uncertainty involved, we determined it would be most prudent to use the estimated response times for large businesses in this ICR's burden calculation.

      It is anticipated that some of the work associated with COIs would be done by contractors in the normal course of business as a customary and usual business practice (CBP), such as maintaining records of who they do business with. The CBP in this ICR are based on knowledge of the business practices of anticipated respondents and from a review of information received from EPA contractors who provided data in response to our consultations.  In our burden calculations, the burden attributable to CBPs is subtracted from the overall total burden to show the new estimated burden anticipated for this requirement.  The calculations for CBP are described below for each category of effort.

 Estimating Respondent Costs
 Estimating Labor Costs
For all tasks, based on historical data, it is calculated that 25% of the effort would be managerial, 50% would be technical, and 25% would be administrative. The mean hourly labor rates are from the May 2016 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates published by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. For business/financial management the rate was $67.17; for a conservation scientist (technical) the rate was $31.31; and for administrative staff the rate was $17.91. To calculate a fully loaded rate, an overhead of 100% was added to the hourly rate.

 Estimating Capital and O&M Costs
Because it will not be necessary for respondents to acquire any capital goods to provide the requested information, EPA has estimated no incurred capital/start-up costs. Operating and maintenance costs, which include such items as file storage, photo copying, and postage, are negligible.

 Estimating Agency Burden and Costs
The Agency based its burden estimates on actual experience in collecting, reviewing, and approving contractors' COI submissions. Due to the complexity of the task, as well as the experience and skill required in reviewing contractors' COI submissions, this effort is performed by a Grade 14 contracting officer. The contracting personnel who review the submissions also document their findings in the contracting file. No administrative support is used in this effort. The second task, reviewing the contractor's COI plan is done before the contract is awarded on a one-time basis. The third task, reviewing certifications and disclosures, includes annual and by work order certifications and disclosures as well as requests. The fourth task is reviewing requests for approval of future contract.

The hourly rate for a step five, GS-14 is $47.86 per Office of Personnel Management Salary Table 2017-GS. A rate of 65%, or $31.10, was added to cover overhead costs. The loaded rate equals $78.96 per hour.

Annual Agency Burden/Cost Estimates
                              Collection Activity
                                 Burden Hours
                                  (per year)
                                     Cost
                           (based on rate of $78.96)
1.  Answer Respondent Questions
                                                                            250
                                                                    $ 19,740.00
2.  Reviewing the contractor's conflict of interest plan
                                                                            240
                                                                    $ 18,950.40
3a. Reviewing annual certifications or disclosures and documenting the file.
                                                              (11 x 2=22 hours)
                                                                             22
                                                                     $ 1,737.12
3b. Reviewing work order certifications or disclosures and documenting the file.
                            (52 x 45 =2,340 responses. 2,340 x 2 = 4,680 hours)
                                                                          4,680
                                                                   $ 369,532.80
4. Reviewing requests for approval for future contracting and documenting the contract file

                                                                            100
                                                                    $  7,896.00
                                                                        Total:
                                                                          5,292
                                                                   $ 416,119.20

 Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs
Respondents to this information collection activity are Agency contractors performing work for the Agency which requires protection from conflicts of interest. The number of EPA contractors who will be required to provide information under this collection is approximately 45, and is derived from the number of COI Plans submitted for review in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Analysis of Annual Respondent Hourly Burden Per-Activity:
          Prepare COI (COI) Plan. (Non-recurring one-time effort) In its initial request, EPA estimated 1,170 hours per plan as a non-recurring one-time cost, because once contractors have prepared a COI Plan, it will only be necessary to update and/or modify it. We continue to utilize the estimate of 1,170 hours per plan for any firms who have never previously done business with EPA or been a prime or subcontractor on a Federal Government contract involving COI provisions. For new respondents, we retain the original CBP of 50%.  This results in an estimate of 585 hours for each of the estimated 15 new respondents.  In order to allocate the 585 hours across the seven-year period of performance we have divided the 585 by 7 to arrive at an average 84 hours per respondent per year to prepare the initial COI plan. Total burden per year for the 15 new respondents is 1,260.

                                        ANNUAL BURDEN:	84 hours per respondent

          Create Data Base. (Non-recurring one-time effort) Our estimate of 700 hours reflects EPA's best estimate based on information received from respondents.  The CPB for this line item is 80%, resulting in total hours of 140. This line item is also a non-recurring one-time burden. Also, as described in task 1 above, these hours are allocated over a seven-year period of performance and only for new respondents, which is anticipated to be 15 per year. Therefore, our estimate includes 140 hours per response for new respondents, divided by 7 years which equals 20 hours per year, times 15 respondents or 300 total burden hours per year for all new respondents.

                                        ANNUAL BURDEN:	20 hours per respondent

          Storage and Maintenance of Records. The estimate for storing and maintaining records is 484 hours per respondent, per year.  Therefore, a total of 154 hours of storage and maintenance of records activity is associated with this collection request.

                                         ANNUAL BURDEN:154 hours per respondent

          Search Data Base Records for Possible COI.  The number of times work is ordered under an EPA contract varies greatly; however, for purposes of this ICR we retain the estimate, based on historical data that 75 work orders will be issued in a given year. Of this number, approximately 16% will be for the same Superfund site for which a previous work order has been issued. Since contractors are not required to submit more than one certification or disclosure per Superfund site, then it is expected that contractors will only do certifications or disclosures for 63 work orders per year.

The average time required to perform each search is estimated to be 8 hours. In our interviews with contractors, we found firms typically perform a key word search (key words such as type of work, location, names of affiliates) in an automated database.  The database search would take less than an hour; however, an employee with the appropriate expertise must review the search findings for accuracy.  Eight hours includes the database search time, ensuring the findings are appropriate, and possibly querying contractor project staff as well as records.  Based on interviews with contractors, the CBP for this line item is 10%.  Therefore, the hours associated with this collection request for data base searches is 7 hours.

                              ANNUAL BURDEN:	7 x 63 = 441 hours per respondent

          Identify Potential COI, Record Decision. Execute Work Order or the Annual Certification, and Notify the EPA of the Decision. This category reflects the management and technical activity in the search and certification effort that a contractor must perform. In accordance with the contract terms, the contractor is required to submit either a onetime certification or individual certifications when work is ordered under the contract. Of the 63 worker orders requiring certification or disclosure, approximately 17% of cases (11 work orders per year) will qualify as needing only an annual certification.  The remaining 52 orders will require individual certification or disclosure.

Our estimate is 28 hours to complete an annual certification (in 11 cases) and 4 hours to complete a per work order review (in 52 cases). The CBP factor for this task is very low because most of this effort is associated solely with EPA requirements. The estimate of 10% for CBP is associated with an identification of a COI on a private contract which requires management attention but may not require the documentation and certification process required by EPA.

                            ANNUAL BURDEN:	11 x 28 = 308 (annual certification)
                                       52 x 4 = 208 (work order certifications)
                                                Total: 516 hours per respondent

          Request Approval to Contract. The estimate utilized is identical to that provided in the ICR for the proposed rule and for previous renewals. It is based upon an average estimate of five requests per respondent per year with an associated effort of 20 hours per request, or 100 hours per respondent. This review and approval time has remained fairly constant over the years and is not expected to change during the three-year period covered by this renewal. This is exclusively a requirement for the Federal Government and therefore no CBP is assigned.

                                        ANNUAL BURDEN:	100 hours per respondent

Analysis of Annual Respondent Cost Per-Activity:
Task & Labor Type Breakdown
                                     Rate
                                     Hours
                                     Cost

New Respondents Only
      Task 1 Prepare COI Plan

Management
                                                                       $ 134.34
                                                                             21
                                                                       $2821.14

Technical
                                                                         $62.62
                                                                             42
                                                                       $2630.04

Administrative
                                                                         $35.82
                                                                             21
                                                                        $752.22

                                                                             84
                                                                       $6203.40

      Task 2 	Create Database

Management
                                                                       $ 134.34
                                                                              5
                                                                        $671.17

Technical
                                                                         $62.62
                                                                             10
                                                                        $626.20

Administrative
                                                                         $35.82
                                                                              5
                                                                        $179.10

                                                                             20
                                                                       $1476.47

All Respondents
      Task 3	Storage & Maintenance

Management
                                                                       $ 134.34
                                                                           38.5
                                                                       $5172.09

Technical
                                                                         $62.62
                                                                             77
                                                                       $4821.74

Administrative
                                                                         $35.82
                                                                           38.5
                                                                       $1379.07

                                                                            154
                                                                      $11372.90

      Task 4 	Search Database

Management
                                                                       $ 134.34
                                                                         110.25
                                                                      $14810.99

Technical
                                                                         $62.62
                                                                         220.50
                                                                      $13807.71

Administrative
                                                                         $35.82
                                                                         110.25
                                                                       $3949.16

                                                                            441
                                                                      $32567.86

      Task 5	Certify/Disclose

Management
                                                                       $ 134.34
                                                                            129
                                                                      $17329.86

Technical
                                                                         $62.62
                                                                            258
                                                                      $16155.96

Administrative
                                                                         $35.82
                                                                            129
                                                                       $4620.78

                                                                            516
                                                                      $38106.60

      Task 6 	Request Approval to Contract

Management
                                                                       $ 134.34
                                                                             25
                                                                       $3358.50

Technical
                                                                         $62.62
                                                                             50
                                                                       $3131.00

Administrative
                                                                         $35.82
                                                                             25
                                                                        $895.50

                                                                            100
                                                                       $7385.00

 Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables
          Respondent Tally
         Total annual respondent burden for new respondents (which includes all tasks) is 1,315 hours times 15 new respondents for a total of 19,725 hours.

         Total annual respondent burden for respondents which are not new (performing only tasks 3 through 6) is 1,211 hours times 30 respondents for a total of 36,330 hours.

         Annual time burden for all respondents, all tasks, is 56,055 hours. Estimated burden per respondent is (total hours divided by all 45 respondents) is 1,245.67.

         For the 15 new respondents required to undertake tasks 1 and 2, annual costs for these activities are estimated to be $7,679.87 per respondent and $115,198.05 for the group.

All 45 respondents are expected to undertake tasks 3 through 6.  Their anticipated annual costs for these activities are $89,432.36 per respondent and $4,024,456.20 for the group.

The total annual cost for all respondents is $4,139,654.25.  The average annual cost per respondent is estimated to be $91,992.32

Analysis of Total Annual Labor Costs

Task 1
$6,203.40

Task 2
$1,476.47

                                                                         Total:
$7,679.87

                                   Task 1&2 Total (for 15 New Respondents):
$115,198.05

Task 3
$11,372.90

Task 4
$32,567.86

Task 5
$38,106.60

Task 6
$7,385.00

                                                                         Total:
$89,432.36

                                           Task 3-6 Total (for 45 Respondents):
$4,024,456.20

                                                         Total All Respondents:
$4,139,654.25
                                                                Per Respondent:
$91,992.32

          Agency Tally
Annual agency burden is estimated to be 5,292 hours and $416,199.20.

 Reason for Changes in Burden
There is a significant reduction in expected respondents (135 to 45), burden hours (164,525 to 50,055), and costs associated with this proposed renewal package compared to the ICR currently approved by OMB. These reductions are solely a result of corrections to the ICR's burden calculations; they are not a product of modifications to the collection methodology or the actual respondent universe.

 Burden Statement
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,218.70 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; 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.  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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OARM-2018-0028, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OARM-2018-0028 and OMB Control Number 2030-0023 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 67242-67243]
[DOCID:fr18de09-83]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-1045]

Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs and Activities
Funded Under Provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In 1999, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
made $5 million available to the Secretary of Homeland Security for
payment per year of Coast Guard expenses for personnel and activities
directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national
recreational boating safety program. In 2005, the law was amended, and
the amount was increased to $5.5 million. The Coast Guard is publishing
this notice to satisfy a requirement of the Act that a detailed
accounting of the projects, programs, and activities funded under the
national recreational boating safety program provision of the Act be
published annually in the Federal Register. In this notice, we have
specified the amount of monies the Coast Guard has committed,
obligated, or expended during fiscal year 2009, as of September 30,
2009.

ADDRESSES: The Coast Guard has submitted a copy of this notice for
publication on http://www.grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this notice, call
Jeff Ludwig, Regulations Development Manager, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century became law on
June 9, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-178; 112 Stat. 107). The Act required that of
the $5 million made available to carry out the national

recreational boating safety program each year, $2 million shall be
available only to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S.
Code--Recreational Vessels. On September 29, 2005, the Sportfishing and
Recreational Boating Safety Amendments Act of 2005 was enacted (Pub. L.
109-74; 119 Stat. 2031). This Act increased the funds available to the
national recreational boating safety program from $5 million to $5.5
million annually, and stated that ``not less than'' $2 million shall be
available only to ensure compliance with Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S.
Code--Recreational Vessels.
    The responsibility to administer these funds was delegated to the
Commandant of the United States Coast Guard. Subsection (c) of section
7405 of the Act directs that no funds available to the Secretary under
this subsection may be used to replace funding traditionally provided
through general appropriations, nor for any purposes except those
purposes authorized; namely, for personnel and activities directly
related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational
boating safety program. Amounts made available each fiscal year from
1999 through 2009 shall remain available until expended.
    Use of these funds requires compliance with standard Federal
contracting rules with associated lead and processing times resulting
in a lag time between available funds and spending. The total amount of
funding transferred to the Coast Guard from the Sport Fish Restoration
and Boating Trust Fund and committed, obligated, and/or expended during
fiscal year 2009 for each activity is shown below.
    Factory Visit Program/Boat Testing Program: Funding was provided to
continue the national recreational boat factory visit program,
initiated in January 2001. The factory visit program currently allows
contractor personnel, acting on behalf of the Coast Guard, to visit
2,000 recreational boat manufacturers each year to either inspect for
compliance with Federal regulations, communicate with the manufacturers
as to why they need to comply with Federal regulations, or educate
them, as necessary, on how to comply with Federal regulations. Funding
was also provided for testing of certain associated equipment and in-
water testing of atypical and used recreational boats for compliance
with capacity and flotation standards. ($2,337,948).
    New Recreational Boating Safety Associated Travel: Travel by
employees of the Boating Safety Division was performed to carry out
additional recreational boating safety actions and to gather background
and planning information for new recreational boating safety
initiatives, in support of the National Recreational Boating Safety
Program Strategic Plan. ($22,793).
    Boating Accident News Clipping Services: Funding was provided to
continue to gather daily news stories of recreational boating accidents
nationally for more real time accident information and to identify
accidents that may involve regulatory non-compliance or safety defects.
($64,000).
    Accident Investigation Tiger Team: Funding was provided to continue
to provide on-call expert accident investigative services for any
boating accident that appeared to involve a regulatory non-compliance
or safety defect. ($132,087).
    Web-based Document Management System: Funding was provided to
continue to provide a Web-based document management system to better
enable the handling of thousands of recreational boating recall case
and campaign reports. ($56,200).
    Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) Outreach Program: Funding was
provided for this program which provides full marketing, media, public
information, and program strategy support to the nation-wide RBS
effort. The goal is to coordinate the RBS outreach initiatives and
campaigns, some of which include: National Boating Under the Influence
Campaign (BUI), ``Boat Responsibly!'', Life Jacket Wear, Vessel Safety
Check Program (VSC), Boating Safety Education Courses, Propeller Strike
Avoidance, Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, and other recreational boating
safety issues on an as needed basis. ($789,019).
    Web site Support: Funding for this initiative provides a full range
of public media and boating safety information at http://
www.uscgboating.org for a worldwide audience. It covers a wide spectrum
of boating safety related topics and is dedicated to reducing loss of
life, injuries, and property damage that occur on U.S. waterways by
improving the knowledge, skills, and abilities of recreational boaters.
($188,137).
    Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) Web System: BARD Web System
funding enables reporting authorities in the 50 States, five U.S.
Territories, and the District of Columbia to submit their accident
reports electronically over a secure Internet connection. The system
also enables the user community to generate statistical reports that
show the frequency, nature, and severity of boating accidents. FY 09
funds supported system maintenance, development, and technical
(hotline) support. ($335,624).
    Recreational Boat Rental Education Package: Funding was provided to
develop a standardized educational package for recreational boat rental
agencies to use to provide the necessary safety information to renters
prior to renting a boat. ($2,161).
    Personnel Support: Funding was provided for personnel to support
the development of new regulations and to conduct boating safety-
related research and analysis ($710,103).
    National Recreational Boating Survey: A national recreational
boating survey is being conducted to obtain up-to-date statistical
estimates on recreational boating. It is anticipated that the first
surveys will be conducted in the spring of 2010, pending Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval. ($224,625).
    Reimbursable Salaries: Funding was provided to carry out the work
as prescribed in 46 U.S.C. 13106(c) and as described herein. The first
position was that of a professional mathematician/statistician to
conduct necessary national surveys and studies on recreational boating
activities as well as to serve as a liaison to other Federal agencies
that are conducting boating surveys so that we can pool our resources
and reduce costs. The second position was that of Outreach coordinator
with responsibility of overseeing and managing RBS projects related to
carbon monoxide poisoning, propeller injury mitigation, manufacturer
compliance initiatives, etc. ($300,098).
    Of the $5.5 million made available to the Coast Guard in fiscal
year 2009, $3,598,866 has been committed, obligated, or expended and an
additional $1,568,929 of prior fiscal year funds have been committed,
obligated, or expended, as of September 30, 2009. Approximately $7.9
million has not been committed, obligated, or expended from previous
years and is being reserved for a multi-year national boating survey.
    This notice is issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 13106(c)(4).

    Dated: December 14, 2009.
K.S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-30070 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 28674-28675]
[DOCID:fr17my06-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

May 8, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-2823-002.
    Applicants: American Cooperative Services, Inc.
    Description: American Cooperative Services, Inc. submits its Second
Revised Sheet No. 1, et al. to its Rate Schedule No. 1 pursuant to
FERC's order 674.
    Filed Date: 5/3/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060504-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 12, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-1118-005.
    Applicants: Continental Electric Cooperative Service, Inc.
    Description: Continental Electric Cooperative Services, Inc.
submits its Second Revised Sheet No. 1 et al. to its Rate Schedule No.
1 pursuant to FERC's order 674.
    Filed Date: 5/3/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060504-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 12, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-738-001; ER06-739-001.
    Applicants: Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P.; East Coast
Power Linden Holding, L.L.C.
    Description: Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P. and East Coast
Power Linden Holding, L.L.C. submits a supplement to its petition filed
with the Commission 3/17/06.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-758-001.
    Applicants: Chambers Cogeneration, Limited Partnership.
    Description: Chambers Cogeneration, Limited Partnership supplements
its petition filed with the Commission 3/16/06.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-902-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. submits modifications to
Service Agreement No. 42, Network Integration Transmission Service
Agreement with San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
    Filed Date: 5/2/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 23, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-904-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee
submits the signature pages of its New England Power Pool Agreement
with Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary 2, Inc et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-905-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Appalachian Power Co. submits a cost-based Formula
Rate Agreement for Full Requirements Electric Service between American
Electric Service Corp. with Craig-Botetourt Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 5/1/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-906-000.
    Applicants: California Power Exchange Corporation.
    Description: California Power Exchange Corp. submits proposed
amendments to its Rate Schedule 1 to recover projected expenses for the
period 7/21/06 through 12/31/06.
    Filed Date: 5/1/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-907-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corp.
    Description: American Electric Power submits a Master Power
Purchase and Sale Agreement with AEP Texas North Company.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-908-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison submits a Letter Agreement
with Stirling Energy Systems Solar One LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-909-000.
    Applicants: PNM Resources Operating Companies; Public Service
Company of New Mexico; Texas-New Mexico Power Company.
    Description: Public Service Co. of New Mexico et al. submits
amended sheets to PNM Resources Operating Companies' Joint OATT, FERC
Electric Tariff Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-910-000.
    Applicants: The United Illuminating Company.
    Description: The United Illuminating Co. submits its
Interconnection Agreement with Bridgeport Energy LLC, Service Agreement
11.1, Second Revised Volume 4 etc.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-911-000.
    Applicants: DC Energy Midwest, LLC.
    Description: DC Energy Midwest, LLC submits an amendment to its
market-based rate tariff no. 1, effective 6/5/06.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-912-000.
    Applicants: DC Energy New York, LLC.
    Description: DC Energy New York, LLC submits an application for
order authorizing market-based rates, waivers, blanket authorizations
and request for expedited action to proposed FERC Electric Tariff,
Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-913-000.
    Applicants: DC Energy Mid-Atlantic, LLC.
    Description: DC Energy Mid-Atlantic LLC submits an application for
order authorizing market-based rates, waivers, blanket authorizations
and request for expedited action to its proposed FERC Electric Tariff
Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-914-000.
    Applicants: DC Energy New England, LLC.
    Description: DC Energy New England, LLC submits an application for
order authorizing market-based rates, waivers, blanket authorizations
and request for expedited action to FERC Electric Tariff, Original
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-915-000.
    Applicants: DC Energy, LLC.
    Description: DC Energy LLC submits an amendment to its market-based
rate electric tariff no. 1.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-916-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc., as agent for Northern State
Power Co. et al. submits its Notice of Termination for the Network
Integration Transmission Service Agreement et al. with Dairyland Power
Coop, effective 5/1/06.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-917-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits revisions to its OATT to
incorporate FERC's Small Generator Interconnection Agreement and
Procedures etc.
    Filed Date: 4/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060505-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 19, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7473 Filed 5-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P