[Federal Register: November 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 68024-68025]
[DOCID:fr04no10-99]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Change in Use of Aeronautical
Property at Louisville International Airport, Louisville, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public
comment on request by the Louisville Regional Airport Authority to
change a portion of airport property from aeronautical to non-
aeronautical use at the Louisville International Airport, Louisville,
Kentucky. The request consists approximately of 1.773 acres of fee
simple release. This action is taken under the provisions of Section
125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st
Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Louisville
International

Airport, 600 Terminal Drive, Louisville, KY 40209 and the FAA Memphis
Airports District Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Building G,
Memphis, TN 38118. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be
delivered or mailed to: Mr. Phillip J. Braden, Manager, Memphis
Airports District Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Building G,
Memphis, TN 38118.
    In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Charles T. Millers, Executive Director,
Louisville Regional Airport Authority, P.O. Box 9129, Louisville, KY
40209.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tommy L. Dupree, Team Lead/Civil
Engineer, Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports District
Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN 38118. The
application may be reviewed in person at this same location, by
appointment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public
comment on the request to release property at the Louisville
International Airport, Louisville, KY. Under the provisions of AIR 21
(49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
    On October 28, 2010, the FAA determined that the request to release
property at Louisville International Airport meets the procedural
requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA may
approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than December 6,
2010.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Louisville Regional Airport Authority is proposing the release
of approximately 1.773 acres along various locations on the western
boundary of Louisville International Airport that are adjacent to
Crittenden Drive. This release is for compliance by the authority with
prior commitments between the Louisville Regional Airport Authority and
The Commonwealth of Kentucky for the previous relocation of Crittenden
Drive associated with the authority's Runway 17R-35L construction at
Louisville International Airport.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect
the request, notice and other documents germane to the request in
person at the Tennessee Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics.

    Issued in Memphis, TN, on October 28, 2010.
Tommy L. Dupree,
Acting Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2010-27893 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2049-2051]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00560]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0022]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Delaware River Dredging, Marcus Hook, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is re-establishing temporary safety zones on
the waters of the Delaware River in portions of Marcus Hook Range and
Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range. The safety zones temporarily
restrict vessel traffic from transiting or anchoring in portions of the
Delaware River while maintenance dredging is being conducted within the
Delaware River. The safety zones are needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from hazards created by dredging
operations. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the COTP or his designated
representatives.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from January 13,
2022 through January 31, 2022. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from January 6, 2022, until January 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0022 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Jennifer Padilla, Waterways Management
Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On September 2, 2021, the Coast Guard established temporary safety
zones on the waters of the Delaware River in portions of Marcus Hook
Range and Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range to temporarily restrict
vessel traffic from transiting or anchoring in portions of the Delaware
River in association with maintenance dredging within the Delaware
River (86 FR 49241, Sept. 2, 2021). That rule expired November 2, 2021.
On January 6, 2022, the dredging company informed the Coast Guard about
additions to the original contract and the need to extend the project.
The new estimated completion date is January 31, 2022.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest. There is insufficient time to allow for a
reasonable comment period prior to the start date for dredging
operations. The rule must be in force by January 6, 2022, to serve its
purpose of ensuring the safety of the public from hazards associated
with dredging operations such as submerged and floating pipeline,
booster pumps, head sections and vessels with a restricted ability to
maneuver.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to mitigate the potential safety
hazards associated with dredging operations in these locations.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that there
are potential hazards associated with dredging operations. The purpose
of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment within a 250-yard radius of dredging operations
and all associated pipeline and equipment.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule re-establishes the safety zones established on September
2, 2021, (86 FR 49241, Sept. 2, 2021). The re-established zones will be
in effect from January 6, 2022, through January 31, 2022. This change
is reflected in a revised enforcement paragraph, paragraph (e). This
rule makes no other changes to the previoius rule. The locations and
restrictions of the safety zones established by the September rule
remain the same.
    The safety zones are necessary to facilitate annual maintenance
dredging of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Marcus Hook Range and
Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range (as described in 33 CFR
110.157(a)(8)). Dredging will most likely be conducted with the dredge
ESSEX, though other dredges may be used, along with associated dredge
pipeline and boosters. The pipeline consists of a combination of
floating hoses immediately behind the dredge and submerged pipeline
leading to upland disposal areas. Due to the hazards related to
dredging operations, the associated pipeline, and the location of
submerged pipeline, safety zones are being established in the following
areas:
    (1) Safety zone one includes all navigable waters within 250 yards
of the dredge displaying lights and shapes for vessels restricted in
ability to maneuver as described in 33 CFR 83.27, and all related
dredge equipment when the dredge is operating in Marcus Hook Range, and
Anchorage 7. This safety zone is being established for the duration of
the maintenance project. Vessels requesting to transit the safety zone
must contact the dredge on VHF channel 13 or 16 at least 1 hour prior

to arrival to arrange safe passage. At least one side of the main
navigational channel will be kept clear for safe passage of vessels in
the vicinity of the safety zone. At no time will the entire main
navigational channel be closed to vessel traffic. Vessels should avoid
meeting in these areas where one side of the main navigational channel
is open and proceed per this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR
subchapter E).
    (2) Safety zone two includes all the waters of Anchorage 7 off
Marcus Hook Range, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(8). Vessels
wishing to anchor in Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook Range while this rule
is in effect must obtain permission from the COTP at least 24 hours in
advance by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessels requesting permission to
anchor within Anchorage 7 off Marcus Hook must be at least 650 feet in
overall length. The COTP will permit, at minimum, only one vessel to
anchor at a time on a ``first-come, first-served'' basis. Vessels will
only be allowed to anchor for a 12 hour period. Vessels that require an
examination by the Public Health Service, Customs, or Immigration
authorities will be directed to an anchorage by the COTP for the
required inspection. Vessels are encouraged to use Anchorage 9 near the
entrance to Mantua Creek, Anchorage 10 at Naval Base, Philadelphia, and
Anchorage 6 off Deepwater Point Range as alternative anchorages.
    Preference is being given to vessels at least 650 feet in length in
the Anchorage 7 while this rule is in effect, because vessels of this
size are limited in their ability to utilize other anchorages due to
draft. The depth of Anchorage 7 provides an acceptable depth for large
vessels to bunker and stage for facility arrival. Smaller vessels
maintain a host of other options to include, but are not limited to
Anchorage 9 and 10 as recommended above.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within safety zone one is
prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the COTP or make
satisfactory passing arrangements with the operating dredge per this
rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E). The COTP may
issue updates regarding the vessel and equipment being utilized for
these dredging operations via Marine Safety Information Bulletin and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
duration, and traffic management of the safety zones. The safety zones
will be enforced in an area and in a manner that does not conflict with
transiting commercial and recreational traffic. At least one side of
the main navigational channel will be open for vessels to transit at
all times. Moreover, the Coast Guard will work in coordination with the
pilots to ensure vessel traffic can transit the area safely.
    Although this regulation will restrict access to regulated areas,
the effect of this rule will not be significant because there are a
number of alternate anchorages available for vessels to anchor.
Furthermore, vessels may transit through the safety zones with the
permission of the COTP or make satisfactory passing arrangements with
the dredge ESSEX, or other dredge(s) that may be used in accordance
with this rule and the Rules of the Road (33 CFR subchapter E). The
Coast Guard will notify the maritime public about the safety zones
through maritime advisories, allowing mariners to alter their plans
accordingly.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the
expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety
zones to protect waterway users that would prohibit entry within 250
yards of dredging operations, within Marcus Hook Anchorage and will
close only one side of the main navigation channel. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L[60a] of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0022, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0022   Safety Zones, Delaware River Dredging; Marcus
Hook, PA.

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones:
    (1) Safety zone one includes all waters within 250 yards of the
dredge displaying lights and shapes for vessels restricted in ability
to maneuver as described in 33 CFR 83.27, as well as all related dredge
equipment, while the dredge is operating in Marcus Hook Range. For
enforcement purposes Marcus Hook Range includes all navigable waters of
the Delaware River shoreline to shoreline, bound by a line drawn
perpendicular to the center line of the channel at the farthest upriver
point of the range to a line drawn perpendicular to the center line of
the channel at the farthest downriver point of the range.
    (2) Safety zone two includes all the waters of Anchorage 7 off
Marcus Hook Range, as described in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(8) and depicted on
U. S. Nautical Chart 12312.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has
been authorized by the Captain of the Port to assist with enforcement
of the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Entry into or transiting within the safety
zone one is prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the
Captain of the Port via VHF-FM channel 16 or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or make
satisfactory passing arrangements via VHF-FM channel 13 or 16 with the
operating dredge per this section and the rules of the Road (33 CFR
subchapter E). Vessels requesting to transit shall contact the
operating dredge via VHF-FM channel 13 or 16 at least 1 hour prior to
arrival.
    (2) Vessels desiring to anchor in safety zone two, Anchorage 7 off
Marcus Hook Range, must obtain permission from the COTP at least 24
hours in advance by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. The COTP will permit, at
minimum, one vessel at a time to anchor on a ``first-come, first-
served'' basis. Vessels will only be allowed to anchor for a 12 hour
period. Vessels that require an examination by the Public Health
Service, Customs, or Immigration authorities will be directed to an
anchorage for the required inspection by the COTP.
    (3) Vessels desiring to anchor in safety zone two, Anchorage 7 off
Marcus Hook Range, must be at least 650 feet in length overall.
    (4) This section applies to all vessels except those engaged in the
following operations: Enforcement of laws, service of aids to
navigation, and emergency response.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by federal,
state and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.
    (e) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from January 6,
2022, through January 31, 2022, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain
of the Port.

    Dated: January 6, 2022.
Jonathan D. Theel,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2022-00560 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: June 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 34404-34405]
[DOCID:fr14jn06-139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-43942; File No. SR-Amex-2006-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Locked Markets

June 5, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 4, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On May
25, 2006, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons and is
granting accelerated approval to the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing
in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to permit Exchange options quotations that
lock the quotations of specialists, registered options traders
(``ROTs''), supplemental registered options traders (``SROTs'') or
remote registered options traders (``ROTs''), to be disseminated and
executed after a short ``counting period.'' \4\ Amex seeks acclerated
approval of the proposed rule change and a retroactive effective date
of April 27, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Telephone conservation between Jeffrey Burns, Vice President
and Associate General Counsel, Amex, and Terri Evans, Special
Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on May 30, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, the Office of the Secretary, the Amex and

at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, as
amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change, as amended. The text of these statements may be examined at the
places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to permit the Exchange's ANTE system
to execute orders on locked market quotes (i.e. 2.00 bid/2.00 offer),
after a short period of time. This proposal would revise current
Commentary .01 to Rule 951--ANTE by eliminating the requirement that
the ANTE system revise the bid or offer by at least one (1) minimum
price variation so that the bid or offer does not lock the ABBO.\5\ The
``counting period'' or time period that will be required for a quote(s)
to exist before an execution on that quote may occur will be one (1)
second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Current Commentary .01 to Rule 951--ANTE provides that if
the bid or offer of a specialist, ROT, SROT or RROT locks or crosses
the Amex best bid or offer (``ABBO''), the ANTE System will either
(i) revise the bid by one or more minimum price variations lower
than the bid submitted or revise the offer by one or more minimum
price variations higher than the offer submitted, so that the bid or
offer submitted does not lock or cross the ABBO; or (ii) if the ABBO
represents an off-floor limit order, the ANTE System will execute
the order and allocate the trade pursuant to the post trade
allocation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because in ANTE the specialist, ROTs, SROTs \6\ and RROTs \7\ may
simultaneously enter quotes,\8\ there may be instances where quotes may
become locked. Under the proposal, the Exchange would disseminate the
locked market and both quotations (bid and offer) would be deemed
``firm'' disseminated market quotations. Once the specialist and/or
ROT, SROT, or RROT quotations become locked, a ``counting period''
would begin during which the specialist and/or ROT, SROT or RROT whose
quotations are locked may eliminate the locked market. Such specialist
and/or ROT, SROT or RROT would be obligated to execute orders at their
disseminated quotation. During the ``counting period,'' specialists and
ROTs in the trading crowd in which the option that is the subject of
the locked market is traded will continue to be obligated to respond to
floor brokers as set forth in Amex Rules 958--ANTE (c) and 950--ANTE
(1) and would continue to be obligated for one contract in open outcry
to other ROTs and specialists.\9\ In addition, during the counting
period all locked markets with respect to the specialist, ROTs, SROTs
and RROTs will be immediately accessible and automatically executable
pursuant to 933--ANTE. The ``counting period'' will be one (1) second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``SROT'' means a ROT that is a member organization so
designated by the Exchange which is granted remote quoting rights to
enter bids and offers electronically from off the Exchange's
physical trading floor. See Amex Rule 900--ANTE(b)(50).
    \7\ ``RROT'' means a ROT that is member or member organization
so designated by the Exchange which is awarded remote quoting rights
to enter bids and offers electronically from locations other than
the trading crowd where the applicable options class is traded on
the Exchange's physical trading floor. See Amex Rule 900--
ANTE(b)(51).
    \8\ The commencement of the Exchange's recently approved SROT
and RROT programs will increase the simultaneous entry of quotes by
multiple ROTs thereby increasing the likelihood of locked markets.
The Exchange's SROT and RROT programs were recently approved by the
Commission on April 12, 2006 and April 13, 2006, respectively. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53635 (April 12, 2006), 71 FR
20144 (April 19, 2006)(order approving the SORT program) and 53652
(April 13, 2006), 71 FR 20422 (April 20, 2006) (order approving the
RROT program).
    \9\ See Amex Rule 958A--ANTE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If at the end of the counting period the quotations remain locked,
the ANTE system would automatically execute the quotations against each
other and allocate the contracts pursuant to Rule 935--ANTE. For
example, if the market is 2 bid for 10 contracts and 2 offered for 20
contracts, after the ``counting period'' terminates, the ANTE system
will execute the quotations against each other so that the remaining
quote becomes 2 offered for 10 contracts. In addition, the quotation
that is locked may be executed by another order during the ``counting
period.''
    The Exchange will not disseminate an internally crossed market
(i.e. 2.10 bid/2.00 offer). If a specialist, ROT, SROT or RROT submits
a quotation that would cross an existing quotation, the Exchange will:
(i) Change the incoming quotation such that it locks the existing
quotation; (ii) send a notice to the specialist, ROT, SROT, or RROT
that submitted the existing quotation indicating that its quotation was
crossed; and (iii) send a notice to the specialist, ROT, SROT or RROT
that submitted the incoming quotation, indicating that is quotation
crossed the existing quotation and was changed. Such a locked market
would then be handled in accordance with proposed paragraph (a) to
Commentary .01 of Rule 951--ANTE concerning locked markets. During the
counting period, if the existing quotation is cancelled subsequent to
the time the incoming

quotation is changed, the incoming quotation will be automatically
restored to its original terms.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is necessary to maintaining
order flow and competitiveness with the other options exchanges. Both
the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') \10\ and the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'') \11\ have adopted similar
proposals to execute locked markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47959 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 34441 (June 9, 2003).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50100 (July 27,
2004), 69 FR 46612 (August 3, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act
\12\ in general and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) \13\ in
particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    According to the Exchange, the proposed rule change, as amended,
does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received with respect
to the proposed rule change, as amended.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
; or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2006-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-38. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
 Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change, as amended, between the Commission and any
person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in
accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for
inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Amex-2006-38 and should be submitted on or before July 5, 2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\14\ Specifically, the
Commission believes the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\15\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In approving this proposed rule change, as amended, the
Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule is consistent with
Rule 602,\16\ the Commission's Quote Rule. The Commission notes that
during the counting period specialists, ROTs, SROTs, and RROTs whose
quotes are locked would remain obligated to execute customer and
broker-dealer orders eligible for automatic execution at the locked
price. The Commission also notes that specialists and other market
makers whose quotes are locked against each other would continue to be
obligated under the Quote Rule for at least one contract to each other
during the counting period. If at the end of the counting period the
quotes remain locked, the quotes would execute against each other.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal provides a
reasonable method for specialists, ROTs, SROTs, and RROTs that lock a
market to unlock the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 242.602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of
publication of notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. The
Commission notes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
substantially similar to CBOE Rule 6.45A(d) and Phlx Rule 1082,
Commentaries .02 and .03 and raises no new regulatory issues.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is consistent with section
19(b)(2) of the Act \17\ to approve the proposed rule change, as
amended, on an accelerated basis effective April 27, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2006-38), as amended, is
approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-5372 Filed 6-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M


[Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 57474-57475]
[DOCID:fr21se10-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on October 18, 2010, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Location: The Marriott Inn and Conference Center, University of
Maryland University College, 3501 University Boulevard East, Adelphi,
MD. The conference center telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Elaine Ferguson, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., WO31-
2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about
last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site
and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to
learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On October 18, 2010, the committee will consider the
results and analyses of the TREAT (Trial to Reduce Cardiovascular
Events with Aranesp Therapy) study of ARANESP (darbepoetin alfa),
manufactured by Amgen, Inc. This meeting is a follow-up to the
September 2007 advisory committee meeting at which the committee
discussed updated information on the risks and benefits of
erythropoeisis-stimulating agents (drugs that stimulate production of
red blood cells), marketed under the brand names ARANESP, EPOGEN, and
PROCRIT, manufactured by Amgen, Inc., when used in the treatment of
anemia (low red blood cell counts) due to chronic kidney failure.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
October 11, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before October 3, 2010. Time allotted for each presentation may
be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by October
4, 2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Elaine Ferguson at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 15, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-23514 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 80052]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27381]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2850-023]

Hampshire Paper Company, Inc., KE Emeryville, LLC; Notice of
Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Protests

    On October 24, 2016, Hampshire Paper Company, Inc. (transferor) and
KE Emeryville, LLC (transferee) filed an application for the transfer
of license of the Emeryville Hydroelectric Project No. 2850. The
project is located on the Oswegatchie River in St. Lawrence County, New
York. The project does not occupy Federal lands.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for
the Emeryville Hydroelectric Project from Hampshire Paper Company, Inc.
to KE Emeryville, LLC.
    Applicants Contact: For transferor: Mr. Charles Wemyss, Hampshire
Paper Company, Inc., c/o Pierce Atwood, LLP, 254 Commercial Street,
Portland, ME 04101, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Mr. Christopher
Howard, Pierce Atwood, LLP, Merrill's Wharf, 245 Commercial Street,
Portland, ME 04101, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For transferee:
Mr. Fr[eacute]d[eacute]ric Boucher, KE Emeryville, LLC, 37 Alfred A.
Plourde Parkway, Suite 2, Lewiston, ME 04240, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Ms. Heather J. Haney, Kaplan Kirsch &
Rockwell, 1675 Broadway, Suite 2300, Denver, CO 80202, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2850-023.

    Dated: November 7, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27381 Filed 11-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 29520]
[DOCID:fr21my08-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-F-0290]

Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc.; Filing of Food Additive
Petition

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that
Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc., has filed a petition proposing that
the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of
cassia gum as a stabilizer in frozen dairy desserts, and to improve
texture and water retention in cheeses, meat products, and poultry
products.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raphael A. Davy, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy, College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food
additive petition (FAP 8A4772) has been filed by Lubrizol Advanced
Materials, Inc., c/o Keller & Heckman LLP, 1001 G St., NW., suite 500
West, Washington, DC 20001. The petition proposes to amend the food
additive regulations in part 172, Food Additives Permitted for Direct
Addition to Food for Human Consumption (21 CFR part 172) to provide for
the safe use of cassia gum as a stabilizer in frozen dairy desserts,
and to improve texture and water retention in cheeses, meat products,
and poultry products.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(k) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    Dated: May 13, 2008.
Laura M. Tarantino,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. E8-11279 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43843-43844]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18235]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0280]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Financial Disclosure
by Clinical Investigators

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by August
27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0396.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.
    Financial Disclosure by Clinical Investigators--(OMB Control Number
0910-0396)--Extension
    Respondents to this collection are sponsors of marketing
applications that contain clinical data from studies covered by the
regulations. These sponsors represent pharmaceutical, biologic, and
medical device firms. Respondents are also clinical investigators who
provide financial information to the sponsors of marketing
applications.
    Under Sec.  54.4(a) (21 CFR 54.4(a)), applicants submitting an
application that relies on clinical studies must submit a complete list
of clinical investigators who participated in a covered clinical study,
and must either certify to the absence of certain financial
arrangements with clinical investigators (Form FDA 3454) or, under
Sec.  54.4(a)(3), disclose to FDA the nature of those arrangements and
the steps taken by the applicant or sponsor to minimize the potential
for bias (Form FDA 3455).
    Under Sec.  54.6, the sponsors of covered studies must maintain
complete records of compensation agreements with any compensation paid
to nonemployee clinical investigators, including information showing
any financial interests held by the clinical investigator, for a time
period of 2 years after the date of approval of the applications.
Sponsors of covered studies maintain many records with

regard to clinical investigators, including protocol agreements and
investigator resumes or curriculum vitae. FDA estimates than an average
of 15 minutes will be required for each recordkeeper to add this record
to the clinical investigators' file.
    Under Sec.  54.4(b), clinical investigators supply to the sponsor
of a covered study financial information sufficient to allow the
sponsor to submit complete and accurate certification or disclosure
statements. Clinical investigators are accustomed to supplying such
information when applying for research grants. Also, most people know
the financial holdings of their immediate family and records of such
interests are generally accessible because they are needed for
preparing tax records. For these reasons, FDA estimates that it will
take clinical investigators 15 minutes to submit such records to the
sponsor.
    Subsequent to publication of the 60-day notice, FDA reestimated the
information collection. Upon additional inspection of the data, FDA has
updated the estimated recordkeeping burden hours to more accurately
reflect the burden.
    In the Federal Register of March 28, 2012 (77 FR 18826), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
         21 CFR Section              Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification--54.4(a)(1) and                902               1             902               1             902
 (a)(2)--Form FDA 3454..........
Disclosure--54.4(a)(3)--Form FDA              90               1              90               5             450
 3455...........................
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,352
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

                                                       Table 2--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                      Average  burden
                           21 CFR Section                               Number of       records per      Total annual         per          Total hours
                                                                      recordkeepers     recordkeeper       records       recordkeeping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping--54.6................................................             902                1              902             0.25              226
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 Table 3--Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                           21 CFR Section                               Number of     disclosures per    Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent      disclosures    per  disclosure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinical Investigators--54.4(b)....................................          10,554                1           10,554             0.17            1,794
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: July 16, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-18235 Filed 7-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM A. JUSTIFICATION 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title  National Estuary Program 1( b) Characterization/ Abstract Section 320 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA) amendments of 1987 established the National Estuary Program ( NEP) to promote long term planning and management in nationally significant estuaries threatened by pollution, development, or overuse. The NEP's objectives are to protect, preserve and restore estuaries. The strategy of the program is to focus on estuaries that are nationally significant in recreational and commercial value, and of great importance for fish and wildlife resources. Another facet of national significance is whether lessons learned in working with the estuary can be applied to other coastal areas. The NEP strategy emphasizes estuaries with problems which detract from the estuary's value and where there is a greater likelihood that NEP efforts will result in improvements in water and sediment quality and in the abundance and variety of living resources.

Nationally significant estuaries are identified in one of two ways: 1) the estuary is nominated by the State in which it lies; or 2) the Administrator identifies an estuary and decides to convene a Management Conference ( the local managing entity of an NEP). When the Governor of the State in which the estuary is located nominates the estuary for acceptance into the NEP, the EPA then evaluates the Governor's nomination. If the EPA approves the addition of an estuary to the NEP, a Management Conference is convened which involves community stakeholders including Federal, State, local, and interstate agencies with jurisdiction over the estuary, and other interested groups.

The addition of estuaries into the NEP has been conducted in five groups or " tiers." The first two tiers included twelve estuaries which the Congress recommended for priority consideration: in 1987, Albemarle Pamlico Sounds in North Carolina, Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts, Long Island Sound in New York and Connecticut, Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, Puget Sound in Washington, and San Francisco Bay in California; and in 1989 Delaware Inland Bays in Delaware, Delaware Bay in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Galveston Bay in Texas, New York New Jersey Harbor in New York and New Jersey, Santa Monica Bay in California and Sarasota Bay in Florida. The nominations were evaluated using EPA guidance on the content of Governor's nominations. In 1991, a third tier of estuaries was designated based on Governor's nominations: Indian River Lagoon in Florida, Tampa Bay in Florida, Barataria Terrebonne Estuarine Complex in Louisiana, Casco Bay in Maine and Massachusetts Bays.

The first 17 estuaries were established on the basis of completing a Comprehensive 2 Conservation and Management Plan ( CCMP) in five years. In an effort to maximize successes of these, the Administrator opened a fourth tier of nominations in 1991 which called for the completion of the planning process in four years. In 1992, four estuaries were designated under this streamlined approach: Peconic Bay in New York, San Juan Harbor in Puerto Rico, Corpus Christi Bays in Texas and Tillamook Bay in Oregon. Continuing the theme of streamlining, the Administrator designated seven new estuaries in 1995 which were to complete their CCMPs in three years: Great Bay in New Hampshire, Barnegat Bay in New Jersey, Maryland Coastal Bays in Maryland, Charlotte Harbor in Florida, Mobile Bay in Alabama, Morro Bay in California and Lower Columbia River in Washington.

Once an estuary is designated by the Administrator, an agreement of intent between the EPA and the State or States, called a Conference Agreement, establishes the governing entity for the project which is called a Management Conference. The Management Conference performs an objective, technical assessment of the condition of the estuary. Based on this assessment, the Conference summarizes the estuary's problems and indicates which problems will be addressed by the Conference. After the estuary's programs are identified, the Management Conference establishes goals and objectives for the estuary. Goals may range from improving the current status of the estuary to maintaining pristine quality. Specific actions and commitments to protect and restore the estuary are developed and the costs and benefits of options are evaluated. This information is used by the Management Conference to develop a comprehensive estuary management plan or CCMP. Once the CCMP is approved by the Administrator, the NEP is responsible for oversight, coordination and facilitation of CCMP implementation activities.

To obtain funding to administer Management Conferences, to characterize and define problems of the estuary, and to develop the CCMP, States and other eligible applicants may apply for federal funds using a standard General Federal Assistance application. To ensure efficient use of allotted resources, an annual work plan for each estuary program must be developed by the Management Conference before individual awards can be approved. The approved work plan then becomes a part of the grant agreement between EPA and the recipient.

In addition, NEPs must also prepare an implementation report every three years. The purpose of these implementation review reports is to document progress made in implementing the CCMPs, to highlight successes, strengths and environmental results, and to identify areas for improvement. This information is used by EPA to make sound decisions regarding continued funding to NEPs implementing their management plans, to transfer lessons learned in the NEPs to other coastal watersheds and EPA programs, and to provide guidance and programmatic support to NEPs based on needs identified in the report.

Individual NEPs must also develop Government Performance Results Act ( GPRA) reports that provide information about environmental results and progress implementing their CCMPs. These are submitted annually with the information being presented to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) with other EPA GPRA measures. 3 2. Need for and use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection Statutory authority for the NEP is provided by § 320 of the Clean Water Act, as amended. The terms and conditions of grants under the NEP are provided in 40 CFR § 35.9040 and § 35.9045, including the requirement for the 50 percent matching funds from non Federal sources and applications that are consistent with the annual work plan prepared by each Management Conference.

For each NEP, other than standard application data, EPA needs: 1) the Governor's voluntary nomination to determine whether an estuary should be included in the NEP; 2) the annual work plan to determine how the federal and non Federal matching funds will be spent; 3) an implementation review report documenting program implementation progress to justify continued EPA funding under section 320; and 4) annual GPRA reports to show environmental results being achieved.

The State's participation in the NEP is voluntary. A Governor nominates an estuary for the NEP on his or her own initiative using guidance which EPA has established. The information from the Governor presents already available knowledge about the estuary and its importance. The nomination also contains the Governor's views concerning the significance of the estuary, the need for the designation, and the State's goals and objectives for the estuary and its strategy for meeting them. To select an estuary for designation, EPA uses information in the nomination and other existing public information on the national significance of the estuary, the importance of the estuary on a regional scale, the environmental problems facing the estuary, and the most likely causes of these problems.

To obtain funding under the NEP, the General Federal Assistance Grant application must be filed and an annual work plan must be prepared. The burden of the actual grant application is covered under the ICR for General Federal Assistance applications ( ICR No. 0938; OMB No. 2030~ 0020). The only burdens covered under this ICR are the burdens of preparing the annual work plan, the implementation review, and GPRA reports which are specific to the NEP. General Federal Assistance Grant application burdens are not unique to the NEP and are not covered by this document.

The annual work plan identifies and discusses the major goals and milestones and projects to be pursued in the year to come. The goals are comprehensive and broad, based on the program goals established by the Management Conference. In addition, the work plan must document the kinds, amounts, and sources of funds for the upcoming year's activities, including a demonstration of how the required matching funds will be provided from non Federal sources.

NEPs must report must report every three years to EPA on their progress in implementing the CCMP and achieving environmental results. 4 NEPs must also annually prepare a GPRA report estimating the number of acres of habitat being restored within their study areas and also indicate the number of CCMP priority actions being initiated.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The EPA Administrator uses the information collected under this information collection request ( ICR) to: 1) evaluate Governor's voluntary nominations of estuaries for the NEP; and 2) evaluate whether grant applications under the NEP should be approved. The following paragraphs describe information required by the NEP:

$ Respondents $ Processes and techniques used to obtain this information $ How and by whom the information is used $ Flow of informationBwhere it is submitted, filed etc.

( A) Governor's Nomination A Governor's nomination is submitted on a one time basis only by States that wish to participate in the NEP, and nominations are accepted only when the administrator determines that additional programs are needed and that sufficient resources are available to support them. At this time, the EPA does not anticipate soliciting nominations in the information collection period of 2003 2006. A Governor's nomination is submitted by a State in which the target estuary lies. If the estuary is located in more than one State, a single nomination may be submitted for the estuary which combines the information from all the participating States.

EPA's guidance concerning the contents of the Governor's nomination " The National Estuary Program Final Guidance on the Contents of the Governor's Nomination," states that three general topics should be addressed.

1. The national significance of the estuary 2. The need for a conference 3. The likelihood of success Much of the information included in a Governor's nomination is available from work already accomplished by States, EPA Regions and local organizations. Some information is also available in EPA's 305 ( b) reports, NOAA's National Estuarine Inventory, NOAA's Coastal Zone Management, Estuarine Research and Marine Sanctuary Programs, and university studies. In the guidance, States are urged to use existing and readily available information in the nominations. New research and studies are not required. For example, data attained from the State economic development agency or a community business group can be used to evaluate recreational and/ or commercial value of the estuary. The uses of the specific information recommended for inclusion in the nomination by the program guidance are described below.

Describe estuary's boundaries  To determine if estuary meets CWA definition. 5 Describe estuary's value  To determine if estuary is nationally significant. Demonstrate how problems will yield transferable results  To determine how an estuary will enhance results that can be applied to other estuarine or coastal watersheds. Data on economic and living resources  To determine if estuary has significant local or regional value. Data on problems  To determine if problems reduce value of estuarine resources. Discussion of cause and effect  To determine if the problem is sufficiently understood so as to be addressed effectively. Assess existing laws, regulations, control programs, enforcement and coordination  To determine if the proposed estuary program entails studies and control efforts beyond these programs. List overall goals for the estuary, and provide examples of specific objectives and action plans  To demonstrate whether State has an understanding of the work which must be done to mitigate problems. List structure and membership of proposed Management Conference  To demonstrate broad stakeholder support for the program. Document existence of and/ or potential for generating public support  To determine whether there is or will be sufficient public support for successful implementation of the program. Discuss interests and agencies already working in the estuary  To determine these public entities' interest in and commitment to protecting or restoring estuarine water quality. Discuss ability to fund the management of the conference and implementing action plans.  To determine if the non federal cost share requirement of the statute can be met and if sufficient funding exists to implement the program.

After an estuary is accepted into the program, the information in the Governor's nomination is then used to initiate consensus among Management Conference members on priority problems to be addressed by the program and to set goals and objectives.

( B) Annual Work Plan In order to receive funds, grantees must submit an annual work plan to EPA. The contents of annual work plans are specified in 40 CFR Section 35.9045. Work plans should include a listing and discussion of completed projects and projects planned for the upcoming year as well as describe the types of funding and amounts to be supplied by each funding source. The work plan is reviewed by EPA and also serves as the scope of work for the grant agreement. Annual work plans must be approved by the EPA after they are approved by the Management Conference so that assistance funding can be awarded. EPA also uses these work plans to track performance of each of the 28 estuary programs currently in the NEP. 6 Information presented in the work plan is based on the EPA/ State Conference Agreement developed for the Management Conference, but may further define the goals and milestones in the overall plan and modifies them based on the success or failure of activities completed in the previous years. The information is available from the Management Conferees and from the Conference Agreement. EPA uses the work plan to determine whether the monies requested in the grant application serve the seven statutory purposes of the Management Conference, whether they fund activities consistent with the individual program goals, and whether their expenditure is an efficient use of resources. The budget information is also used to determine whether 50 percent of the funding is provided by non Federal sources as required by 40 CFR Section 35.9040.

( C) Implementation Reviews NEPs must submit a report documenting the implementation progress that has been made by the program. The purpose of these reviews is to highlight progress, identify opportunities and issues, and determine whether some level of continued base funding is warranted. These reviews must be conducted and a report on implementation progress submitted every three years.

Each NEP should provide written information on the following set of topics:

$ Status of CCMP implementation ( programmatic progress)

$ Environmental results and monitoring, including environmental indicators $ Technical assistance and public education $ Resources $ Institutional coordination and public involvement $ Overall program strengths and limitations $ Feedback on EPA's involvement in CCMP implementation While annual work plans are submitted as a component of the implementation reviews, they cannot serve in place of the implementation review because annual work plans are limited to the activities of the grant recipient. The implementation review encompasses the progress made by the overall estuary program which is a collaboration of many stakeholders each contributing to the implementation of the management plan and the restoration and protection of the estuary. Only the NEP can collect this information from many stakeholders because, according to purpose ( 6) of § 320 of the CWA, the NEP is responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of actions taken to implement the management plan. In addition, § 320( h) of the CWA requires grant recipients to report on the progress made under § 320. The standard recordkeeping requirement for EPA grants is 3 years after the date the recipient submits the final Financial Status Report ( FSR). 7 ( D) Government Results Performance Act ( GPRA) Reporting The Government Performance and Results Act ( GPRA) requires that each agency report annually to Congress on the results of its activities in each fiscal year. This Annual Performance Report forms the bridge between the goals and objectives presented in the EPA Strategic Plan and budgeted activities. The Annual Performance Report tracks the progress made toward implementing goals and objectives in any single fiscal year. To assist in fulfilling this requirement, the NEPs are asked to report on two items. The first is determining the number of acres of habitat that have been restored within individual study areas. Information is provided on the type of restoration being performed and type of habitat being restored. The second item is how many priority action items within the CCMP have been initiated. This is an indication of progress being made implementing the CCMP. NEP reporting on these items helps to measure EPA's overall goal of clean and safe water.

Use of Improved Information Technology States can access numerous computerized data bases to obtain information necessary for the Governor's nomination. These data bases are particularly useful in assessing water quality. EPA data bases which are available are the Surf Your Watershed, Index of Watershed Indicators ( IWI), Reach File, Water Quality File, Industrial Facilities Discharge File, Permit Compliance System, BIOS, Complex Effluent Toxicity Information System, Water Body File, Federal Reporting Data System, Needs Survey File, and Grants Information Control System. EPA encourages the use of internet resources to the maximum extent in all NEP transactions. It is conceivable that nominations and work plans of the near future could be transmitted to EPA electronically.

3. Non Duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Non Duplication The NEP is a program which is being directed by the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds ( OWOW). The Governor's nomination, the annual work plan, the implementation review, and GPRA reporting are unique documents addressing particular requirements of the NEP. No other program or office at the EPA or any other federal, State, or local agency requests this same data organized in this particular manner.

Although there are no duplicative reporting requirements, some data required for the Governor's nomination may be available from other EPA programs and from other federal, State and local agencies. However, no one source contains all the data required for the Governor's nomination. Therefore, the data must be compiled from other sources and organized in a manner detailed in the NEP guidance and it must reflect the Governor's priorities and recommendations. The nomination guidance also affords the states considerable flexibility in style and interpretation. Some of the Federal agencies that compile information relevant to the Governor's nomination are the Department of Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Natural 8 Resources Conservation Service. In addition, public interest groups, such as the Nature Conservancy, may possess appropriate information. For example, data on declining fish catches to assess the estuary's commercial and recreational value can be obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sources. Listings of participating sources of data and information appear in the ICR for the National Estuary Program, Appendix A, Nov. 22, 1989. For annual work plans, implementation reviews, and GPRA reporting, the NEP Management Conferences are the only source of information.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB EPA Published a Federal Register notice on 10/ 29/ 2002 on pages 65978 65979 to announce the renewal of this ICR. No comments were received.

3( c) Consultations EPA convenes two national conferences with the NEP each year. A main purpose is to meet with respondents and receive feedback on how EPA can better provide service. Discussions on how reporting can be made less burdensome is also routine. This offers an opportunity for EPA to continually evaluate its policies and guidance to make them as effective as possible.

EPA also has regulations that address the grants portion of the NEP. These regulations require that a Management Conference be convened and that certain program objectives are complete before funds are awarded to program participants under section 320( g)( 3) of the CWA. In addition, EPA has issued the guidance package entitled " The National Estuary Program: Final Guidance on the Contents of a Governor's Nomination."

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection A Governor's nomination is submitted on a one time basis only by States that elect to participate in the NEP, and only when the Administrator determines that there is a need for additional programs and that there are sufficient resources to support these actions. At this time, the EPA does not anticipate soliciting nominations in the information collection period of 2003 2006. Therefore, frequency of collection is not an issue for the reporting requirements contained in this ICR.

Annual work plans are prepared every year and are submitted with the grant application. Priorities for Management Conferences can change during a year, and numerous projects are tied to the results of projects completed during the year. Therefore, work plans must be developed annually to plan and track the progress of this program.

Implementation reviews are now conducted every three years, which is less frequent than during the last ICR cycle when it was required every two years. Three years is an appropriate time for significant progress to be made since the previous review. Longer than three years poses the risk of not identifying program issues which, left unaddressed, may result in program failure before corrective action can be recommended. This also puts the Agency at risk of funding programs that are not using EPA funds for appropriate purposes or achieving expected results. Less than three years would be a significant burden with nominal, if any, increases in useful 9 information.

GPRA reporting is performed on an annual cycle, typically around the beginning of the new fiscal year. Therefore, the NEP GPRA reports need to be provided annually to measure progress toward annual targets.

3( e) General Guidelines This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6 in that:

$ Information is not collected more often than quarterly.

$ Responses are not required in less than 30 days.

$ Respondents are not required to submit more than an original and two copies of the document.

$ It does not provide for remuneration of respondents other than contractors or grantees.

$ It does not require records to be kept for more than three years.

$ It is not in conjunction with a statistical survey.

$ Provisions for small businesses and other small entities are appropriate.

$ Confidentiality is protected.

$ It does not require provision of information in a format other than that which it is customarily maintained.

3( f) Confidentiality The Governor's nomination is considered an application and is confidential until a Management Conference is convened. Similarly, applications for 320( g)( 3) grants are confidential until an offer or award is accepted by the applicant. After acceptance, all documents are public.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No information of a sensitive nature is requested by this ICR.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Respondents are mainly State and local government workers. The SIC code applicable to the State and local governments is 9511.

4( b) Information Requested ( I) Data items: Annual Work Plans, Implementation Review Report, GPRA Reports For annual workplans the standard recordkeeping requirement for EPA grants is 3 years after the date the recipient submits the final Financial Status Report ( FSR). ( ii) Respondent Activities: Compiling information on each NEP program activities such as restoration projects, outreach material that has been developed, and workshop proceedings. This may include reviewing and transmitting information or searching established databases. 10 5. The Information Collected B Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities For annual workplans, implementation review reports, and GPRA reports, the agency typically will answer respondent questions, hold conference calls, review and analyze the submissions, record the submissions, and store the information.

5( b) Collection Methodologies and Management Annual workplans serve as a scope of work for the grant agreement and are submitted in hard copy form as part of the grant application. Implementation review reports are submitted partly in paper because of examples of brochures, pictures, and other public outreach tools that have been developed, and partly electronically. GPRA reports are mainly provided electronically in a standard Microsoft Word table format. Quality is checked by follow up conversations with the respondents. For example, with the implementation review, conference calls are set up to go over the specific submittals and discuss overall progress being made implementing the CCMP. This allows for detailed scrutiny of the information provided. The processing technology at this time is standard desktop computer with word processing software. Agency staff will enter and store some data electronically using these formats. GPRA information is also stored in a manner that allows the public access through the EPA website. Much of the other information is not electronic and will be disseminated at conferences and workshops as appropriate. In the future there is a possibility much of the information could be scanned to make it more accessible to the public.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility States and local governments are the most likely respondents to this information request. The burden on small organizations is therefore not an issue for the reporting requirements contained in this ICR.

5( d) Collection Schedule Annual workplans are required each year from the 28 NEPs by June 30th. Implementation Reviews are scheduled as follows: No reviews are scheduled for 2003; in 2004, nine programs will submitting Implementation Reports, five programs by March 1, 2004, and four programs by June 1, 2004. GPRA reports are submitted annually to correspond with the Agency reporting process and are requested to be provided by October 30th.

6. Estimating The Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden 11 The total number of estuary programs in the NEP is limited by the amount of funds appropriated from Congress. Current status and budget projections provide for up to a total of 28 estuaries in the NEP in FY2003. During the term of this ICR, all 28 are operating in the post CCMP implementation stage which, as discussed in the abstract in section 1( b), concerns oversight and implementation of the CCMP. During the post CCMP phase, the NEP programs receive significantly less funding and the annual work plan encompasses less effort than those of the pre CCMP period. Based on the experience of program participants to date, we will continue to use the burden hour estimates developed for the 1999 ICR calculations for both respondents and agency.

( A) Annual Work Plans: It is estimated that 100 burden hours are required for State personnel to prepare and gather information to summarize the previous years activities, to plan for the current year, and to produce the annual work plan. This is the same value used in the previous review cylce. It is expected that Management Conferences will be moving to more improved records keeping and tracking, which should result in a lower burden for the following cycle.

The annual workplan burden to respondent is:

FY 03: 28 Annual Work Plans 28 Annual Work Plans * 100 hrs/ workplan = 2,800 hrs/ year FY 04: 28 Annual Work Plans 2,800 hrs/ year * 3 years = 8,400 hrs/ 3 years FY 05: 28 Annual Work Plans ( B) Implementation Review: It is estimated that 250 burden hours are required for respondents to prepare and gather information to summarize the previous period's activities. Because it is expected that NEPs will be continually reviewing and reassessing priorities within each program, 250 hours is considered to be an upper limit on the effort required to prepare an implementation review report. The 1999 ICR value of 250 will again be used for this cycle. The personnel required to complete this effort is a mix of white collar staff levels with the approximately 55 percent being technical staff, 5 percent being secretarial and 40 percent being administration or managerial level.

The implementation review report burden to the respondent is:

FY03: 0 Implementation Review Reports FY04: 9 Implementation Review Reports FY05: 19 Implementation Review Reports 28 Implementation Review Reports * 250 hours/ report = 7,000/ 3 years ( C) Government Performance Results Act Reporting: Based on discussions with respondents, it is estimated that an upper limit for burden hours to the NEPs for reporting GPRA information is 60 hours with a lower limit of 10 hours for those programs with established information management systems in place. As programs begin to establish tracking systems and information management systems the burden hours should decrease. Presently, the annual average estimate of 12 burden hours for the NEPs collecting and reporting GPRA information is 35 hours per report.

The GPRA reporting burden to the respondent is:

FY03: 28 GPRA Reports 28 GPRA Reports * 35hrs/ report = 980hrs/ year FY04: 28 GPRA Reports 980 hrs/ year * 3 years = 2,940hrs/ 3 years FY05: 28 GPRA Reports 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs 6( b)( I) Estimating Labor Costs ( A) Annual Workplans: The post CCMP annual workplan is estimated to take 100 hours of preparation time by State and local government personnel. In the last ICR cycle, 1999, a labor rate of $ 54/ hour was used that included fringe benefits and other overhead costs as well as travel and other material costs. The rate and burden were based on the experience of the States of Rhode Island and California during the FY 1997 implementation review. The average hourly 2002 rate for this ICR is $ 60, as adjusted with the Employment Cost Index ( ECI) , using the 1999 ICR baseline of $ 54/ hour. It reflects the total cost to employ an individual and includes salaries, fringe benefits and other overhead costs.

The annual workplan cost to the respondent is:

FY 03: 28 Annual Work Plans 28 Annual Work Plans * 100 hrs/ workplan = 2,800 hrs/ year FY 04: 28 Annual Work Plans 2,800 * 3 years = 8,400 hrs/ 3 years FY 05: 28 Annual Work Plans 2,800 hrs/ year * $ 60hr = $ 168,000/ year ( B) Implementation Review: It is estimated that 250 burden hours are required for respondents to prepare and gather information to summarize the previous period's activities. Because it is expected that NEPs will be continually reviewing and reassessing priorities within each program, 250 hours is considered to be an upper limit on the effort required to prepare an implementation review report. The State and local government labor rate of $ 60, which reflects adjustment from the 1999 ICR baseline using the ECI, will be used ( see Annual Workplan cost description).

The implementation review report cost to the respondent is:

FY03: 0 Implementation Review Reports FY04: 9 Implementation Review Reports FY05: 19 Implementation Review Reports 28 Implementation Review Reports * 250 hours/ report = 7,000/ 3 years 7,000/ 3 years * $ 60 = $ 420,000 $ 420,000 / 3 years = $ 140,000 / year ( C) Government Performance Results Act Reporting: Based on discussions with respondents, it is estimated that an upper limit for burden hours to the NEPs for reporting GPRA information is 60 hours with a lower limit of 10 hours for those programs with established information 13 management systems in place. As programs begin to establish tracking systems and information management systems the burden hours should decrease. Presently, the annual average estimate of burden hours for the NEPs collecting and reporting GPRA information is 35 hours per report. The State and local government labor rate of $ 60, which reflects adjustment from the 1999 ICR baseline using the ECI, will be used ( see Annual Workplan cost description).

The GPRA annual reporting cost to the respondent is:

FY03: 28 GPRA Reports 28 GPRA Reports * 35hrs/ report = 980hrs/ year FY04: 28 GPRA Reports 980 hrs/ year * 3 years = 2,940hrs/ 3 years FY05: 28 GPRA Reports 980hrs/ year * $ 60hr = $ 58,800 ( 6)( b)( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs: As in the last review cycle, 1999, no Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs are expected.

( 6)( b)( iii) Capital/ Start up Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs: As in the last review cycle, 1999, no Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs are expected.

( 6)( b)( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs: N/ A 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost ( A) Annual Workplans: Part of the overall burden and cost to the federal government is based on the number of annual work plans expected each year as estimated in Item No. 6( a). The burden and cost are also based on the last ICR cycle in 1999. In the last ICR cycle, 1999, reviewing the post CCMP annual work plan required 16 hours of federal workers' time. These estimates were collected from several EPA Regional Offices and also from headquarters staff reviewers. The 16 hour value is still applicable for this review cycle. Also in the last ICR cycle, 1999, a labor rate of $ 46/ hour was used which was lower than the State and local government rate because the mix of staff requires less senior level involvement. The average hourly federal worker 2002 rate for this ICR is $ 52/ hour, as adjusted with the Employment Cost Index ( ECI), using the 1999 ICR baseline of $ 46/ hour. The burden and cost to the federal government for reviewing annual workplans is summarized below.

( A) Post CCMP Annual Work Plan FY03: 28 NEP Annual Work Plans FY04: 28 NEP Annual Work Plans FY05: 28 NEP Annual Work Plans 28 Work Plans * 16 hours/ plan = 448 hours/ year 448 hours/ year * 3 years = 1,344 hours/ 3 years 448 hours/ year * $ 52/ hour = $ 23,296/ year 14 ( B) Implementation Reviews: Part of the overall burden and cost to the federal government is based on the number of implementation review reports expected each year as estimated in Item No. 6( a). The burden and cost are based on the last ICR cycle in 1999. In the last ICR cycle, 1999, reviewing the implementation review reports required 40 hours of federal workers' time. The burden is based on experience with the implementation reviews conducted during the past few years. These estimates were collected from several EPA Regional Offices and also from HQ staff reviewers. The 40 hour value is still applicable for this review cycle. Also in the last ICR cycle, 1999, a labor rate of $ 46/ hour was used which was lower than the State and local government rate because the mix of staff requires less senior level involvement. The average hourly federal worker 2002 rate for this ICR is $ 52/ hour, as adjusted with the Employment Cost Index ( ECI), using the 1999 ICR baseline of $ 46/ hour. The burden and cost to the federal government for reviewing implementation review reports is summarized below.

The implementation review report burden and cost to the Agency is:

FY03: 0 Implementation Review Reports FY04: 9 Implementation Review Reports FY05: 19 Implementation Review Reports 28 Implementation Review Reports * 40 hours/ report = 1,120hrs/ 3 years 1120hrs/ 3 years * $ 52/ hour = $ 58,240 $ 58,240 / 3 years = $ 19,413 / year ( C) Government Performance Results Act Reporting:

Part of the overall burden and cost to the federal government is based on the number of GPRA reports expected each year as estimated in Item No. 6( a). Based on headquarters experience approximately 8 hours of federal workers time is required to review a GPRA report. The hourly rate for staff is $ 52 per hour as described in ( B) above. The GPRA review burden and cost is:

FY03: 28 GPRA Reports 28 GPRA Reports * 8hrs/ report = 224hrs/ year FY04: 28 GPRA Reports 224 hrs/ year * 3 years = 672hrs/ 3 years FY05: 28 GPRA Reports 224hrs/ year * $ 52/ hr = $ 11,648 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The total universe of respondents is 28, as every NEP is required to submit annual workplans, implementation reviews, and GPRA reports over this three year cycle.

Total Burden to Respondent: 15 Annual Workplans 8,400 hrs/ 3 years Implementation Reviews 7,000 hrs/ 3 years GPRA Reports 2,940 hrs/ 3 years Total 18,340 hrs/ 3 years Annualized 6,113 hours/ year Total Cost to Respondent: Annual Workplans $ 504,000 / 3 years Implementation Reviews $ 420,000 / 3 years GPRA Reports $ 176,400/ 3 years Total $ 1,100,400 Annualized $ 366,800/ year Total Burden for Agency: Annual Workplans 1,344 hours/ 3 years Implementation Reviews 1,120 hours/ 3 years GPRA Reports 672 hours / 3 years Total 3,136 hours/ 3 years Annualized 1,045 hours/ year Total Cost to Agency: Annual Workplans $ 69,888 Implementation Reviews $ 58,240 GPRA Reports $ 34,944 Total $ 1,63072 Annualized $ 54,357/ year 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ( I) Respondent Tally Total Burden: 6,113 hrs/ year Total Cost: $ 366,800/ year ( ii) The Agency Tally Total Burden: 1,045 hours/ year Total Cost: $ 54,357/ year ( iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line: It is not anticipated that there will be a significant variation (> 25%) for the burden or cost to either respondents or Agency over this ICR cycle.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden 16 1999 2003 Change in Burden Federal Government 955 hours/ year 1,045 hours/ year 90 hours/ year NEP Respondents 5,967 hours/ year 6,113 hours/ year 146 hours/ year An action notice from OMB increased the original burden request for the previous ICR by 40,800 hours. This cycle will reduce the estimated burden by 40,654 to 6,113 annual respondent hours. These estimated hours are based on the experience of the NEP participants to date. Although all NEPs will be submitting post CCMP Work Plans, which are significantly less burdensome than pre CCMP Work Plans, NEP reporting burden hours have increased slightly since the last ICR for GPRA reports. By the end of this term, the 28 NEPs will be required to submit 84 reports that weren't submitted last cycle to show environmental progress being made and progress toward EPA's Office of Water GPRA goals. In contrast, implementation review reporting has been reduced from every two years to now every three years, thereby creating less burden on the respondents. EPA instituted the implementation review process to ensure that continued EPA funding under section 320 is appropriate. This determination must be made periodically to ensure that each NEP remains on track and continues to make progress implementing their CCMP and reporting environmental results. The implementation review reporting is anticipated to become less burdensome by the next cycle as reporting becomes more streamlined and electronic submittals will be more common.

6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 100 hours per response for Annual Workplans, 250 hours per response for Implementation Review reports, and 35 hours per response for GPRA reporting. 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 No. OW 2003 0001, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 17 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET 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. Once 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, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OW 2003 0001) and OMB control number ( 2040 0138) in any correspondence.