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, as well as 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 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 CCMP for
the estuary.  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 review 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, as well as 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.

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. 0938.11; 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 every three years to EPA on their progress in
implementing the CCMP and achieving environmental results.

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 information(where 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 2006-2009.  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.

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 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.

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 modify
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 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).

(D)  Government Performance Results 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 a good
indicator of progress being made in 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 administered 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 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 May 23, 2006 on
pages 29619 – 29621 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 2006-2009.  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 in the past when they were required every two years.
Three years is adequate time for significant progress to be made
implementing the CCMP.  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 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 activities for each
NEP program  such as restoration projects, outreach material that has
been developed, and workshop proceedings.  This may include reviewing
and transmitting information or searching established databases.

5.  The Information Collected(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
February 28th.

Implementation Reviews are scheduled as follows: 12 programs are
scheduled for FY (07, nine for FY (08, and seven for FY (09.  GPRA
reports are submitted annually to correspond with the Agency reporting
process and are requested to be provided by the end of the fiscal year.

6. Estimating The Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

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 FY
2006.  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 2002 ICR calculations for the agency as well as respondents, except
for the GPRA hours which decreased slightly.

 (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 cycle.  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 07:  28 Annual Work Plans       28 Annual Work Plans * 100
hrs/workplan = 2,800 hrs/year

FY 08:  28 Annual Work Plans       2,800 hrs/year * 3 years = 8,400
hrs/3 years

FY 09:  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 2002 ICR value of 250
burden hours will again be used for this cycle.  The personnel required
to complete this effort is a mix of white collar staff: approximately 55
percent technical, 5 percent secretarial and 40 percent administration
or managerial level.

The implementation review report burden to the respondent is:

FY07: 12 Implementation Review Reports

FY08: 9 Implementation Review Reports

FY09: 7 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 more programs have established tracking
systems and information management systems the burden hours have
decreased from the last reporting cycle.  The annual average estimate of
burden hours for the NEPs to collect and report GPRA information is
presently 25 hours per report.

The GPRA reporting burden to the respondent is:

FY07:  28 GPRA Reports      28 GPRA Reports * 25hrs/report = 700hrs/year

FY08:  28 GPRA Reports      700hrs/year * 3 years = 2,100hrs/3 years

FY09:  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, in 2002, a labor rate of $60/hour was
used that included fringe benefits and other overhead costs as well as
travel and other material costs.  The average hourly 2006 rate for this
ICR is $66.96, as adjusted with the Employment Cost Index (ECI), using
the 2002 ICR baseline of $60/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 07:  28 Annual Work Plans       28 Annual Work Plans * 100
hrs/workplan = 2,800 hrs/year

FY 08:  28 Annual Work Plans        2,800 * 3 years = 8,400 hrs/3 years

FY 09:  28 Annual Work Plans        2,800 hrs/year *  $66.96hr =
$187,488/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 $66.96 which reflects adjustment from the 2002 ICR
baseline using the ECI, will be used (see Annual Workplan cost
description).

The implementation review report cost to the respondent is:

FY07: 12 Implementation Review Reports

FY08: 9 Implementation Review Reports

FY09: 7 Implementation Review Reports

28 Implementation Review Reports *  250 hours/report = 7,000/3 years

7,000/3 years * $66.96 = $468,720  $468,720/3 years =   $156,240/ 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

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 25 hours per
report.

The State and local government labor rate of $66.96, which reflects
adjustment from the 2002 ICR baseline using the ECI, will be used (see
Annual Workplan cost description).

The GPRA annual reporting cost to the respondent is:

FY07:  28 GPRA Reports       28 GPRA Reports * 25hrs/report =
700hrs/year

FY08:  28 GPRA Reports       700 hrs/year * 3 years = 2,100hrs/3 years

FY09:  28 GPRA Reports       700hrs/year * $66.96hr = $58,600

(6)(b)(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs:

As in the last review cycle, 2002, 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, 2002, 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 2002.  In the last ICR cycle, 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, 2002, a labor rate of $52/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 2006 rate for a Federal worker is $58.03, as adjusted with the
Employment Cost Index (ECI) using the 2002 ICR baseline of $52/hour.
The burden and cost to the Federal Government for reviewing annual
workplans is summarized below.

(A)  Post-CCMP Annual Work Plan

FY07:	28 NEP Annual Work Plans

FY08:	28 NEP Annual Work Plans

FY09:	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 * $58.03/hour = $25,997/ year

(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 the last ICR cycle 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, 2002, a
labor rate of $52/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 rate for this ICR is
$58.03/hour, adjusted with the Employment Cost Index (ECI) using the
2002 ICR baseline of $52/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:

FY07: 7 Implementation Review Reports

FY08: 12 Implementation Review Reports

FY09: 9 Implementation Review Reports

28 Implementation Review Reports * 40 hours/report = 1,120hrs/3 years

1120hrs/3 years * $58.03/hour = $64,994     $64,994/3 years =
$21,665/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 $58.03 per hour as described in (B) above.  The GPRA
review burden and cost is:

FY07:   28 GPRA Reports       28 GPRA Reports * 8hrs/report =
224hrs/year

FY08:   28 GPRA Reports       224 hrs/year * 3 years = 672hrs/3 years

FY09:   28 GPRA Reports       224hrs/year * $58.03/hr = $12,999

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:

                                                  Annual Workplans
           8,400 hrs/3 years

                                                  Implementation Reviews
       7,000 hrs/3 years

                                                  GPRA Reports
             2,100 hrs/3 years

      Total         17,500 hrs/3 years

     Annualized   5,833 hours/year

Total Cost to Respondent:

                                                  Annual Workplans
           $562,464/3 years

                                                  Implementation Reviews
       $468,720/3 years

                                                  GPRA Reports
             $175,800/3 years

            Total  $1,206,984

      Annualized    $402,328/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                  $
77,992

                                                  Implementation Reviews
        $ 64,996

                                                  GPRA Reports
              $ 38,998

              Total   $181,986

      Annualized    $60,662/year

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

(I) Respondent Tally             Total Burden:  5,833 hrs/year
Total Cost: $402,328yr

(ii) The Agency Tally           Total Burden:  1,045 hours/year
Total Cost:  $60,662/yr

(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 -

EPA instituted an implementation review process for the NEPs to ensure
that continued EPA funding under section 320 is appropriate.
Implementation review reporting was reduced from every two years to
every three years in 2002, thereby creating less burden on the
respondents.  This review is made periodically to ensure that each NEP
remains on track and continues to make progress implementing their CCMP
and reporting environmental results.  In the implementation of the CCMP
the GPRA reporting of environmental results is less burdensome as
reporting has become more streamlined and electronic submittals 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 25 hours per response for GPRA reporting.  Burden means the
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, 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. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0369, which is available for on-line
viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov
 or in person 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 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>).

An electronic version of the public docket is available through the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at www.regulations.gov.  Use
FDMS 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.  (EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0369) and OMB control number
2040-0138 in any correspondence.

NOTE: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the
last week of June 2006.  The Docket Center is continuing to operate.
However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket
Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people
who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to
view documents.  Consult EPA’s Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147
(July 5, 2006) or the EPA website at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm  for current information on
docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers.  The Docket
Center’s mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  are not affected by the flooding and will remain
the same.

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

	This section is not applicable because no statistical procedures are
employed for the data collection.

 PAGE  17


1 Date: 6 August 2004 To: James Covington, EPA From: Amy Stillings and Maureen F. Kaplan, ERG Subject: Airport Industrial Discharges: Number of Small Entities 1. Summary Fourteen of 211 airports likely to be within the scope of a effluent limitation guideline for airport industrial discharges belong to small entities.

2. Airport Population of Interest EPA identified 211 airports with the potential for significant deicing operations based on the number of operations (

10,000 operations per year) and snowfall (

1 inch per year), see ERG, 2000. The initial data set, then, is the 211 airports listed in ERG, 2000, Table 3 2. The classification scheme is summarized in Table 1. An airport in Group B1, for example, identifies an airport with between 210,000 and 420,000 operations per year and between 60 and 120 inches in annual snowfall.

Table 1 Airport Groups: Number of Operations by Snowfall Group ID Size Category A 425,000  Number of Operations < 850,000 B 210,000  Number of Operations < 425,000 C 100,000  Number of Operations < 210,000 D 50,000  Number of Operations < 100,000 E 10,000  Number of Operations < 50,000 1 60"  annual snowfall < 120"

2 30"  annual snowfall < 60"

3 15"  annual snowfall < 30" 2 4 1"  annual snowfall < 15"

3. Airport Ownership ERG downloaded the FAA Airport Data ( 5010) and Contact Information data file for National Flight Data Center ( NFDC) facilities ( FAA, 2004). The data exports are for effective date August 5, 2004. ERG matched the 211 airports of interest to their owners and whether the owner was public or private by the airport code, city, and state. This information in included in Attachment 1 to this memorandum.

The list includes:

# Stewart International Airport which is owned National Express Group, PLC.

# University of Illinois # Andrews Air Force Base, owned by the Federal Government.

# States # Counties # Cities # Multipurpose Port Authorities or Airport Authorities 4. Small Entities This section reviews the decision making assumptions for identifying airports belonging to small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 USC Section 601) defines three types of small entities:

# small business   defined by Small Business Administration size standards # small organizations   defined as any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

# small governmental jurisdictions   defined as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.

4.1 Small Businesses Stewart International Airport is owned by a commercial company that operates the public airport. It is owned by National Express Corporation which is a subsidiary of National Express Group, PLC, a British company ( Stewart, 2004; Hoovers, 2004a and 2004b). Stewart International Airport is the only airport in the set of 211 airports owned by a commercial company.

The Small Business Administration defines a small business or concern as " a business entity organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States..." ( Code of Federal Regulations, Title 13, § 121.105( a)) and " there can be no more than 49 percent participation by foreign business entities in a joint venture...." ( Code of Federal Regulations, Title 13, § 121.105( b)). EPA interprets this as foreign companies are, by definition, not small businesses. 3 4.2 University of Illinois The University of Illinois is a state university system. State Agencies are considered in Section 4.3. If the University is considered as a business, its NAICS code would be 611310   Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools   with a size standard of $ 6 million dollars ( SBA, 2002). The University of Illinois had an operating budget of $ 2.9 billion in 2003 ( UI, 2004). The airport owned by the University of Illinois does not belong to a small entity.

4.3 Governmental Juridictions 4.3.1 Federal and State Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act excludes federal and state governmental entities as " small governmental jurisdictions," see Section 4. So any airport that belongs to a Federal entity such as the United States Air Force which owns Andrews Air Force Base, or to State entities such as Alaska's Department of Transportation and Public Facilities do not belong to small entities.

4.3.2 Counties and Cities Any airport belonging to a city or county would belong to a small governmental entity if the city or county had a population of 50,000 persons or fewer. In some cases, an airport belongs to more than one county or city. If any one of the owning cities or counties reports a population of more than 50,000 persons, this is sufficient information to determine the airport does not belong to a small entity. Otherwise, the size determination was made on the basis of the total population in the cities or counties.

4.3.3 Authorities A multipurpose port authority is a legally chartered institution operating a variety of publicly owned facilities such as airports, harbors, toll roads, and bridges. The authority typically has considerable autonomy from city/ state government including the authority to issues debt in the form of revenue bonds. A single purpose authority is similar to a port authority but it runs only airport( s) ( USEPA, 2000).

For the purpose of determining whether an airport belongs to a small entity, we consider authorities to be special district governmental jurisdictions. The definition depends on the population served by the governmental jurisdiction, not the number of people employed by the governmental jurisdiction. As such, small entities are identified by airports serving populations of 50,000 people or fewer.

ERG used the following set of logic to identify the population served by the airport authority:

# If the airport name includes the terms " international" or " regional," the airport is assumed to serve the metropolitan statistical area. 4 # Otherwise, the airport is assumed to serve the S incorporated place with the same city name as the airport.

S city name.

A variety of Census sources were used ( Census, 2004a through 2004c). Table 2 lists the 14 airports belonging to small entities. The information for all 211airports is in Attachment 1 to this memo as well as additional references. 1U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 data, accessed August 5, 2004.

2 City of Elko, " Welcome to the City of Elko," http:// www. ci. elko. nv. us/ econdev/ area_ description. htm, accessed August 5, 2004.

3 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 data, http:// salina. areaconnect. com/ statistics. htm accessed August 5, 2004.

5 Table 2 U. S. Airports Belonging to Small Entities Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 C3 ACK NANTUCKET MEMORIAL NANTUCKET MA TOWN OF NANTUCKET 9,5201 E1 ASE ASPEN PITKIN COS/ SARDY FIELD ASPEN CO PITKIN COUNTY 15,002 E3 MVY MARTHA'S VINEYARD VINEYARD HAVEN MA COUNTY OF DUKES COUNTY 15,601 E2 EKO ELKO MUNI J. C. HARRIS FIELD ELKO NV CITY OF ELKO 16,7082 E4 RDM ROBERTS FIELD REDMOND OR CITY OF REDMOND 16,822 E4 LMT KLAMATH FALLS INTERNATIONAL KLAMATH FALLS OR CITY OF KLAMATH FALLS 19,286 C1 JNU JUNEAU INTL JUNEAU AK CITY OF JUNEAU 30,767 E3 LWS LEWISTONNEZ PERCE COUNTY LEWISTON ID CITY OF LEWISTON/ NEZ PERCE CO 37,699 E4 MEI KEY FIELD MERIDIAN MS MERIDIAN ARPT AUTH 39,559 E4 CAE COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN COLUMBIA SC RICHLAND LEXINGTON 44,228 E4 FTW FORT WORTH MEACHAM FORT WORTH TX CITY OF FORT WORTH 44,382 E3 SLN SALNIA MUNI SALINA KS SALINA ARPT AUTH 45,6793 E4 WDG ENID WOODRING MUNI ENID OK CITY OF ENID 46,436 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 6 D4 PHF NEWPORT NEWS/ WILLIAMSBURG NEWPORT NEWS VA PENINSULA ARPT CMSN 48,907 5. References Census. 2004a. U. S. Census Bureau. For large Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 2002 population. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003. Table 26 and for incorporated places with 100,000 or more inhabitants in 2002. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003. Table 31. http:// www. census. gov/ prod/ 2004pubs/ 03statab/ pop. pdf. Accessed 5 August.

Census. 2004b. U. S. Census Bureau. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Accounts. Local Area BEARFACTS. Searchable database by state, county, and city. http:// www. bea. dc. gov/ bea/ regional/ bearfacts/ action. cfm Accessed 5 August.

Census. 2004c. U. S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates. State, county, and subcounty data. http:// eire. census. gov/ popest/ estimates_ dataset. php Accessed 5 August.

ERG. 2000. Eastern Research Group, Inc. " Final Development of Estimated Loadings in Wastewater Discharges from Aircraft Deicing/ Anti icing Operations." Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. January.

FAA. 2004. Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Data ( 5010) and Contact Information web page. NFDC facilities data export. http:// www. faa. gov/ arp/ safety/ 5010/ index. cfm? nav= safedata and http:// www. faa. gov/ arp/ safety/ 5010/ excel/ NfdcFacilities. xls.

Hoovers. 2004a. National Express Corporation. http:// www. hoovers. com/ national express corp./ ID__ 106383/ free co factsheet. xhtml downloaded 5 August.

Hoovers. 2004b. National Express Group PLC. http:// www. hoovers. com/ national express group plc/ ID__ 93628/ free co factsheet. xhtml downloaded 5 August.

SBA. 2002. Small Business Administration. Small Business Size Standards; Size Standards by 2002 North American Industry Classification System. Federal Register 67: 56944. 6 September.

Stewart. 2004. Stewart International Airport web site. About Us. http:// www. stewartintlairport. com/ about. html downloaded 5 August.

UI. 2004. University of Illinois. Web site. About the University. http:// www. uillinois. edu/ about/ index. html# alsosee downloaded 5 August. 7 USEPA. 2000. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary Data Summary: Airport Deicing Operations ( revised). EPA 821 R 00 016. August. 8 Attachment 1 U. S. Airports with Potentially Significant Aircraft Deicing/

Anti icing Operations by Airport Group and Ownership Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 A1 DEN DENVER INTL DENVER CO CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER PU 557,478 B1 ANC ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE AK STATE OF ALASKA DOTPF PU > 50,000 CI GCN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK GRAND CANYON AZ STATE OF ARIZONA PU > 50,000 C1 JNU JUNEAU INTL JUNEAU AK CITY OF JUNEAU PU 30,767 D1 ALB ALBANY COUNTY ALBANY NY ALBANY COUNTY ARPT AUTH PU 297,845 D1 BGR BANGOR INTL BANGOR ME CITY OF BANGOR PU 146,098 D1 BTV BURLINGTON INTL BURLINGTON VT CITY OF BURLINGTON PU 202,441 D1 BUF GREATER BUFFALO INTL BUFFALO NY NIAGARA FRONTIER TRAN AUTH PU 1,161,024 D1 GRR KENT COUNTY INTL GRAND RAPIDS MI KENT CO DEPT OF AERONAUTICS PU 590,417 D1 PWM PORTLAND INTL JETPORT PORTLAND ME CITY OF PORTLAND PU 500,314 D1 ROC GREATER ROCHESTER INTERNATIONAL ROCHESTER NY COUNTY OF MONROE PU 736,738 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 9 D1 SYR SYRACUSE HANCOCK INTL SYRACUSE NY CITY OF SYRACUSE PU 651,980 E1 ADQ KODIAK KODIAK AK STATE OF AK DOTPF  CENTRAL RGN PU > 50,000 E1 APA CENTENNIAL DENVER CO ARAPAHOE CO PUBLIC ARPT AUTH PU 516,060 E1 ASE ASPEN PITKIN COS/

SARDY FIELD ASPEN CO PITKIN COUNTY PU 15,002 E1 AZO KALAMAZOO/

BATTLE CREEK KALAMAZOO MI KALAMAZOO COUNTY PU 242,110 E1 BGM BINGHAMTON REGIONAL/ EDWIN BINGHAMTON NY BROOME COUNTY PU 199,360 E1 CPR NATRONA COUNTY INTL CASPER WY COUNTY BOARD OF TRUSTEES PU 68,211 E1 DLH DULUTH INTL DULUTH MN CITY OF DULUTH PU 276,194 E1 ELM ELMIRA/ CORNING REGIONAL ELMIRA NY COUNTY OF CHEMUNG PU 90,413 E1 ENA KENAI MUNI KENAI AK CITY OF KENAI PU 50,944 E1 ERI ERIE INTL ERIE PA ERIE MUNI ARPT AUTHORITY PU 280,427 E1 FAI FAIRBANKS INTL FAIRBANKS AK STATE OF ALASKA DOTPF PU > 50,000 E1 FLG FLAGSTAFF PULLIAM FLAGSTAFF AZ CITY OF FLAGSTAFF PU 119,892 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 10 E1 IAG NIAGARA FALLS INTL NIAGARA FALLS NY NIAGARA FRONTIER T A PU 1,161,024 E1 ITH TOMPKINS COUNTY ITHACA NY TOMPKINS COUNTY PU 101,411 E1 MHT MANCHESTER MANCHESTER NH CITY OF MANCHESTER PU 391,976 E1 MKG MUSKEGON COUNTY MUSKEGON MI MUSKEGON COUNTY PU 173,090 E1 MRI MERRILL FIELD ANCHORAGE AK MUNCI OF ANCHORAGE PU 333,329 E1 SBN MICHIGAN RGNL TRANSPORTATION SOUTH BEND IN ST JOSEPH CNTY ARPT AUTHORITY PU 62,864 E1 TVC CHERRY CAPITAL TRAVERSE CITY MI GRAND TRAVERSE &

LELANAU CO PU 82,011 E1 UCA ONEIDA COUNTY UTICA NY COUNTY OF ONEIDA PU 234,373 A2 BOS GENERAL EDWARD LAWRENCE LOGAN BOSTON MA MASS PORT AUTHORITY PU 4,440,043 A2 DTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WAYNE DETROIT MI WAYNE COUNTY PU 93,728 A2 MSP MINNEAPOLISST PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS MN METRO ARPT CMSN PU 3,056,652 A2 ORD CHICAGO O'HARE INTL CHICAGO IL CITY OF CHICAGO PU 9,268,920 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 11 A2 PIT PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL PITTSBURGH PA ALLEGHENY CO ARPT AUTHORITY PU 1,261,303 B2 CLE CLEVELANDHOPKINS INTL CLEVELAND OH CITY OF CLEVELAND PU 2,141,802 B2 SLC SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY UT BRIGHAM CITY PU 995,344 C2 BDL BRADLEY INTL WINDSOR LOCKS CT STATE OF CONNECTICUT PU > 50,000 C2 MDW CHICAGO MIDWAY CHICAGO IL CITY OF CHICAGO PU 9,268,920 C2 MKE GENERAL MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL MILWAUKEE WI MILWAUKEE COUNTY PU 933,221 D2 BET BETHEL BETHEL AK STATE OF AK DOTPF CENTRAL RGN PU > 50,000 D2 COS CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS COLORADO SPRINGS CO CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS PU 565,206 D2 DSM DES MOINES INTL DES MOINES IA CITY OF DES MOINES PU 496,061 D2 GEG SPOKANE INTL SPOKANE WA SPOKANE COUNTY CITY PU 431,027 D2 MDT HARRISBURG INTERNATIONAL HARRISBURG PA SUSQUEHANNA AIRPORT AUTH PU 514,319 D2 PVD THEODOR FRANCIS GREEN STAT PROVIDENCE RI STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PU > 50,000 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 4The Authority is comprised of both Marion County and Harrison County.

12 D2 TOL TOLEDO EXPRESS TOLEDO OH TOLEDO LUCAS COUNTY PORT AUTH PU 454,216 E2 ABE LEHIGH VALLEY INTERNATIONAL ALLENTOWN PA LEHIGH NORTHAMPTON A AUTH PU 757,636 E2 AGC ALLEGHENY COUNTY ALLEGHENY PA ALLEGHENY CO ARPT AUTHORIT PU 1,261,303 E2 AKN KING SALMON KING SALMON AK STATE OF AK DOTPF CENTRAL RGN PU > 50,000 E2 ALO WATERLOO MUNI WATERLOO IA CITY OF WATERLOO PU 162,185 E2 ATW OUTAGAMIE COUNTY APPLETON WI OUTAGAMIE COUNTY PU 167,411 E2 BIL BILLINGS LOGAN INTL BILLINGS MT CITY OF BILLINGS PU 141,555 E2 BIS BISMARCK MUNI BISMARCK ND CITY OF BISMARCK PU 96,118 E2 CAK AKRON CANTON REGIONAL AKRON OH AKRON CANTON RGNL ARPT AUTH PU 700,130 E2 CID THE EASTERN IOWA AIRPORT CEDAR RAPIDS IA CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS PU 241,548 E2 CKB BENEDUM CLARKSBURG WV BENEDUM AIRPORT AUTHORITY4 PU 68,032 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 5 City of Elko, " Welcome to the City of Elko," http:// www. ci. elko. nv. us/ econdev/ area_ description. htm, accessed August 5, 2004. 13 E2 CRW YEAGER CHARLESTOWN WV CENTRAL WVA REG ARPT AUTH PU 306,544 E2 CWA CENTRAL WISCONSIN MOSINEE WI MARATHON AND PORTAGE CO PU 127,168 E2 CYS CHEYENNE CHEYENNE WY CHEYENNE ARPT BOAR PU 83,033 E2 DET DETROIT CITY DETROIT MI CITY OF DETROIT PU 4,477,159 E2 EKO ELKO MUNI J. C.

HARRIS FIELD ELKO NV CITY OF ELKO PU 16,7085 E2 FAR HECTOR INTERNATIONAL FARGO ND CITY OF FARGO MUNI ARPT AUTH PU 177,134 E2 FNT BISHOP INTERNATIONAL FORT WAYNE IN BISHOP INTL ARPT AUTH PU 396,541 E2 FSD JOE FOSS FIELD SIOUX FALLS SD SIOUX FALLS REGNL ARPT AUTH PU 194,802 E2 FWA FORT WAYNE INTERNATIONAL FORT WAYNE IN FT WAYNE/ ALLEN CO ARPT AUTH PU 108,241 E2 GFK GRAND FORKS INTL GRAND FORKS ND GRAND FORKS REG ARPT AUTH PU 95,827 E2 GRB AUSTIN STRAUBEL INTERNATIONAL GREEN BAY WI BROWN COUNTY PU 233,888 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 6serves Lewis And Clark County 7 City of Mansfield, Ohio, " Statistics for Mansfield," http:// www. ci. mansfield. oh. us/ history_ stats. htm, accessed August 5, 2004.

8 The Metropolitan Airport Authority is governed by a Board of Commissioners, appointed by the Rock Island County Board Chairman, and the Mayors of East Moline, Moline, Milan, Rock Island and Silvis.

14 E2 HLN HELENA REGIONAL HELENA MT HELENA REG ARPT AUTH6 PU 57,137 E2 IDA FANNING FIELD IDAHO FALLS ID CITY OF IDAHO FALLS PU 104,882 E2 LAN CAPITAL CITY LANSING MI CAPITAL REGION ARPT AUTHORITY PU 453,668 E2 LSE LA CROSSE MUNI LA CROSSE WI CITY OF LA CROSSE PU 127,970 E2 MBS MBS INTERNATIONAL SAGINAW MI MBS INTERNATIONAL PU 209,727 E2 MFD MANSFIELD LAHM MUNI MANSFIELD OH CITY OF MANSFIELD PU 51,6007 E2 MGW MORGANTOWN MUNI WALTER L. B. MORGANTOWN WV CITY OF MORGANTOWN PU 113,021 E2 MLI QUAD CITY MOLINE IL METROPOLITAN AIRPORT AUTH8 PU 147,912 E2 MSN DANE COUNTY REGIONAL TRUAX MADISON WI DANE COUNTY PU 449,378 E2 MSO MISSOULA INTERNATIONAL MISSOULA MT MISSOULA CTY ARPT AUTH PU 97,882 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 9 National Express Group, PLC operates the airport. 15 E2 PIH POCATELLO REGIONAL POCATELLO ID CITY OF POCATELLO PU 83,276 E2 PTK OAKLANDPONTIAC PONTIAC MI COUNTY OF OAKLAND PU 1,207,869 E2 PUB PUEBLO MEMORIAL PUEBLO CO CITY OF PUEBLO PU 147,293 E2 RAP RAPID CITY REGIONAL RAPID CITY SD CITY OF RAPID CITY PU 115,595 E2 RFD GREATER ROCKFORD ROCKFORD IL GREATER ROCKFORD ARPT AUTH PU 326,521 E2 RST ROCHESTER INTERNATIONAL ROCHESTER MN CITY OF ROCHESTER PU 169,698 E2 SUX SIOUX GATEWAY SIOUX CITY IA SIOUX GATEWAY AIRPORT AUTH. PU 142,714 E2 SWF STEWART INTL NEWBURGH NY SWF ARPT ACQUISITION INC. PU foreign owner9 E2 TWF JOSLIN FIELDMAGIF VALLEY TWIN FALLS ID CITY & COUNTY OF TWIN FALLS PU 67,082 E2 YIP WILLOW RUN DETROIT MI WAYNE COUNTY AIRPORT AUTH PU 2,028,778 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 10U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 data. 16 E2 YNG YOUNGSTOWNWARREN REGIONAL YOUNGSTOWN/

WARREN OH WESTERN RES PORT AUTH PU 595,763 A3 EWR NEWARK INTL NEWARK NJ PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ PU 18,569,181 A3 STL LAMBERT ST LOUIS INTL ST. LOUIS MO CITY OF ST LOUIS PU 2,723,511 B3 BWI BALTIMOREWASHINGTON INTL BALTIMORE MD STATE OF MD PU 2,598,976 B3 CVG CINCINNATI/ NORTH ERN KENTUCKY COVINGTON/

CINCINNATI KY KENTON COUNTY ARPT BOARD PU 152,287 B3 DCA WASHINGTON NATIONAL ARLINGTON DC METRO WASH ARPT AUTHORITY PU 5,013,431 B3 IAD WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL LOUDON VA METRO WASH ARPT AUTHORITY PU 5,013,431 B3 JFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK NY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & PU 18,569,181 B3 LGA LA GUARDIA NEW YORK NY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & PU 18,569,181 B3 PHL PHILDELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA PA CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PU 5,743,491 C3 ACK NANTUCKET MEMORIAL NANTUCKET MA TOWN OF NANTUCKET PU 9,52010 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 17 C3 ADW ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE CAMP SPRINGS MD USAF PR > 50,000 C3 CMH PORT COLUMBUS INTL COLUMBUS OH COLUMBUS REGIONAL AIRPORT AUT PU 1,655,942 C3 IND INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS IN INDIANAPOLIS AIRPORT AUTH PU 1,574,963 C3 MCI KANSAS CITY INTL KANSAS CITY MO CITY OF KANSAS CITY PU 1,886,672 C3 RNO RENO/ TAHOE INTERNATIONAL RENO NV AIRPORT AUTH OF WASHOE CO PU 370,853 C3 SDF LOUISVILLE INTLSTANDIFORD LOUISVILLE KY REGIONAL ARPT AUTH PU 1,180,294 D3 ACY ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL ATLANTIC CITY NJ SOUTH JERSEY TRANSPORTATION A PU 258,983 D3 BOI BOISE AIR TERMINAL/

GOWEN FL BOISE ID CITY OF BOISE PU 498,562 D3 DAY JAMES M. COX DAYTON INTL DAYTON OH CITY OF DAYTON PU 845,410 D3 HYA BARNSTABLE MINIBOARDMAN PO HYANNIS MA TOWN OF BARNSTABLE PU 227,862 D3 OMA EPPLEY AIRFIELD OMAHA NE OMAHA ARPT AUTH PU 783,477 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 11 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 data.

12The Airport Authority consists of three members appointed by Mesa County Commissioners.

18 E3 AMA AMARILLO INTL AMARILLO TX CITY OF AMARILLO PU 230,767 E3 AVP WILKES BARRE/

SCRANTON INTL WILLKESBARRE SCRANTON PA LUZERNE AND LACKAWANNA CO PU 313,528 E3 BMI BLOOMINGTON/

NORMAL BLOOMINGTON/

NORMAL IL BLOOMINGTON NORMAL ARPT AUTH PU 176,957 E3 CMI UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS WILL CHAMPAIGN/

URBANA IL UNIV OF ILLINOIS PU E3 DEC DECATUR DECATUR IL DECATUR PARK DISTRICT PU 112,391 E3 EWB NEW BEDFORD REGIONAL NEW BEDFORD MA CITY OF NEW BEDFORD PU 170,16111 E3 FOE FORBES FIELD TOPEKA KS METROPOLITAN TOPEKA ARPT AUTH PU 225,424 E3 GJT WALKER FIELD GRAND JUNCTION CO WALKER FLD PUB ARPT AUTH12 PU 124,676 E3 GON GROTON NEW LONDON GROTON/ NEW LONDON CT STATE OF CONNECTICUT PU > 50,000 E3 HPN WESTCHESTER COUNTY WHITE PLAINS NY COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER PU 940,302 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 13 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 data. 19 E3 HTS TRI STATE/ MILTON J. FERGUSON HUNTINGTON WV TRI STATE AIRPORT AUTH. PU 286,541 E3 HUF HULMAN REGIONAL TERRE HAUTE IN TERRE HAUTE INTL ARPT AUTH PU 169,617 E3 ICT WICHITA MIDCONTINENT WICHITA KS WICHITA AIRPORT AUTHORITY PU 579,921 E3 ILG NEW CASTLE COUNTY WILMINGTON DE DELAWARE RIVER BAY AUTH PU 515,074 E3 ISP LONG ISLAND MAC ARTHUR ISLIP NY TOWN OF ISLIP PU 322,61213 E3 LEX BLUE GRASS LEXINGTON KY LEXINGTON FAYETTE CO ARPT BRD PU 266,798 E3 LNK LINCOLN MUNI LINCOLN NE LINCOLN ARPT AUTH PU 273,853 E3 LNS LANCASTER LANCASTER PA LANCASTER ARPT AUTHORITY PU 478,389 E3 LWS LEWISTON NEZ PERCE COUNTY LEWISTON ID CITY OF LEWISTON/

NEZ PERCE CO PU 37,699 E3 LYH LYNCHBURG REGIONAL/

PRESTON LYNCHBURG VA CITY OF LYNCHBURG PU 230,099 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 14The Port of Pasco is a local municipal corporation established by Franklin County.

20 E3 MKC KANSAS CITY DOWNTOWN KANSAS CITY MO CITY OF KANSAS CITY PU 1,886,672 E3 MVY MARTHA'S VINEYARD VINEYARD HAVEN MA COUNTY OF DUKES COUNTY PU 15,601 E3 MWH GRANT COUNTY MOSES LAKE WA PORT OF MOSES LAKE PU 78,691 E3 PIA GREATER PEORIA REGIONAL PEORIA IL GREATER PEORIA ARPT AUTHORITY PU 366,302 E3 PKB WOOD COUNTY AIRPORT GILL PARKERSBURG WV WOOD CO. ARPT AUTH PU 87,336 E3 PNE NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA PA CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PU 5,743,491 E3 PSC TRI CITIES PASCO WA PORT OF PASCO14 PU 56,126 E3 RDG READING REGIONAL/

CARL A SPA READING PA READING REGIONAL ARPT AUTH. PU 381,354 E3 ROA ROANOKE REGIONAL/

WOODRUM FI ROANOKE VA ROANOKE REG ARPT CMSN PU 289,161 E3 SGF SPRINGFIELDBRANSON REGIONAL SPRINGFIELD MO CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PU 378,795 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 15 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 data, http:// salina. areaconnect. com/ statistics. htm 21 E3 SLN SALNIA MUNI SALINA KS SALINA ARPT AUTH PU 45,67915 E3 SPI CAPITAL SPRINGFIELD IL SPRINGFIELD ARPT AUTHORITY PU 204,153 E3 TEB TETERBORO TETERBORO NJ PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ PU 18,569,181 E3 TRI TRI CITIES REGIONAL TN/ VA BRISTOL/ JOHNSON/

KING TN BRISTOL JOHNSON KINGSPORT PU 183,625 E3 YKM YAKIMA AIR TERMINAL YAKIMA WA CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA PU 226,727 A4 ATL THE WILLIAM B.

HARTSFIELD AT ATLANTA GA CITY OF ATLANTA PU 425,000 A4 DFW DALLAS/

FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL DALLAS FORT WORTH TX CITIES OF DALLAS AND FT WORTH PU 1,211,000 B4 CLT CHARLOTTE/

DOUGLAS INTL CHARLOTTE NC CITY OF CHARLOTTE PU 581,000 B4 LAS MC CARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS NV CLARK COUNTY PU 1,576,541 B4 MEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS TN MEMPHIS SHELBY CNTY ARPT AUTH PU 649,000 B4 PDX PORTLAND INTL PORTLAND OR THE PORT OF PORTLAND PU 539,000 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 22 B4 SEA SEATTLE TACOMA INTL SEATTLE WA PORT OF SEATTLE PU 570,000 C4 ABQ ALBUQUERQUE INTL SUNPORT ALBUQUERQUE NM CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE PU 725,000 C4 BNA NASHVILLE INTERNATIONAL NASHVILLE TN METRO NASHVILLE ARPT AUTH PU 784,000 C4 DAL DALLAS LOVE FIELD DALLAS TX CITY OF DALLAS PU 147,000 C4 RDU RALEIGH DURHAM INTERNATIONAL RALEIGH/

DURHAM NC RALEIGH DURHAM ARPT AUTH PU 190,000 C4 TUL TULSA INTL TULSA OK CITY OF TULSA PU 251,000 D4 BFI BOEING FIELD/ KING COUNTY INTL SEATTLE WA KING COUNTY PU 464,000 D4 BHM BIRMINGHAM INTL BIRMINGHAM AL BIRMINGHAM AIRPORT AUTHORITY PU 546,000 D4 ELP EL PASO INTL EL PASO TX CITY OF EL PASO PU 1,211,000 D4 GSO PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL GREENSBORO NC PIEDMONT TRIAD ARPT AUTH. PU 307,000 D4 LIT ADAMS FIELD LITTLE ROCK AK CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PU 392,000 D4 MAF MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL MIDLAND TX CITY OF MIDLAND PU > 50,000 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 23 D4 OKC WILL ROGERS WORLD OKLAHOMA CITY OK OKLAHOMA CITY AIRPORT TRUST PU 190,000 D4 ORF NORFOLK INTL NORFOLK VA NORFOLK AIRPORT AUTH PU 163,000 D4 PHF NEWPORT NEWS/ WILLIAMSBU RG NEWPORT NEWS VA PENINSULA ARPT CMSN PU 48,907 D4 RIC RICHMOND INTERNATIONAL RICHMOND VA CAPITAL REGION ARPT COMM. PU 399,000 D4 ROW ROSWELL INDUSTRIAL AIR CENT ROSWELL NM CITY OF ROSWELL PU 1,761,411 D4 TUS TUCSON INTL TUCSON AZ TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY PU 239,000 D4 TYS MC GHEE TYSON KNOXVILLE TN METRO KNOXVILLE ARPT AUTH PU 577,000 D4 VGT NORTH LAS VEGAS LAS VEGAS NV CLARK COUNTY PU 228,000 E4 ABI ABILENE REGIONAL ABILENE TX CITY OF ABILENE PU 622,188 E4 ACT WACO REGIONAL WACO TX CITY OF WACO PU 96,573 E4 AFW FORT WORTH ALLIANCE FT WORTH TX CITY OF FORT WORTH PU 519,000 E4 AGS BUSH FIELD AUGUSTA GA CITY OF AUGUSTA PU 239,000 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 24 E4 AVL ASHEVILLE REGIONAL ASHEVILLE NC CITY OF ASHEVILLE PU 180,000 E4 BLI BELLINGHAM INTL BELLINGHAM WA PORT OF BELLINGHAM PU 197,000 E4 CAE COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN COLUMBIA SC RICHLAND LEXINGTON PU 44,228 E4 CHA LOVELL FIELD CHATTANOOGA TN CHATTANOOGA METRO ARPT AUTH PU 878,748 E4 CHO CHARLOTTESVILL E ALBERMARLE CHARLOTTESVILLE VA CHRLTSVL ALBMRL ARPT AUTH PU 174,000 E4 CLL EASTERWOOD FIELD COLLEGE STATION TX CITY OF CLINTONVILLE PU 1,576,541 E4 CSM CLINTONSHERMAN CLINTON OK CITY OF CLINTON PU 177,000 E4 EUG MAHLON SWEET FIELD EUGENE OR CITY OF EUGENE PU 313,528 E4 EVV EVANSVILLE REGIONAL EVANSVILLE IN EVANSVLLE/ VANDERBURG ARPT AUT PU 68,507 E4 FAY FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL/ GRANN FAYETTEVILLE NC CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PU 71,958 E4 FLO FLORENCE REGIONAL FLORENCE SC CITY & COUNTY OF FLORENCE PU 79,285 E4 FMN FOUR CORNERS REGIONAL FRAMINGTON NM CITY OF FARMINGTON PU 94,112 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 25 E4 FSM FORT SMITH REGIONAL FORTH SMITH AR FORT SMITH ARPT COMMISSION PU 122,000 E4 FTW FORT WORTH MEACHAM FORT WORTH TX CITY OF FORT WORTH PU 44,382 E4 FYV DRAKE FIELD FAYETTEVILLE AR CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PU > 50,000 E4 GGG GREGG COUNTY LONGVIEW TX GREGG COUNTY PU 940,302 E4 GSP GREENVILLESPARTANBURG GREER SC GREENVILLE SPARTANBURG ACMSN PU > 50,000 E4 HOB LEA COUNTYHHOBBS HOBBS NM LEA COUNTY PU 58,096 E4 HSV HUNTSVILLE INTLCARL T. JONE HUNTSVILLE AL HUNTSVILLE MADISON COUNTY PU 355,000 E4 ILM NEW HANOVER INTERNATIONAL WILMINGTON NC NEW HANOVER COUNTY PU 515,074 E4 LAW LAWTON MUNI LAWTON OK CITY OF LAWTON PU 331,023 E4 LBB LUBBOCK INTL LUBBOCK TX CITY OF LUBBOCK PU 264,000 E4 LMT KLAMATH FALLS INTERNATIONAL KLAMATH FALLS OR CITY OF KLAMATH FALLS PU 19,286 E4 MEI KEY FIELD MERIDIAN MS MERIDIAN ARPT AUTH PU 39,559 E4 MFR ROGUE VALLEY INTERNATIONAL MEDFORD OR JACKSON COUNTY PU 190,077 Airport Group Airport Code Airport Name City State Owner Type of Owner Estimated Population 2002/ 2003 26 E4 MYR MYRTLE BEACH INTL MYRTLE BEACH SC HORRY COUNTY PU 210,757 E4 RDD REDDING MUNI REDDING CA CITY OF REDDING PU 87,579 E4 RDM ROBERTS FIELD REDMOND OR CITY OF REDMOND PU 16,822 E4 SHV SHREVEPORT REGIONAL SHREVEPORT LA CITY OF SHREVEPORT PU 199,000 E4 SJT MATHIS FIELD SAN ANGELO TX CITY OF SAN ANGELO PU 87,922 E4 TCL TUSCALOOSA MUNI TUSCALOOSA AL CITY OF TUSCALOOSA PU 165,518 E4 TYR TYLER POUNDS FIELD TYLER TX CITY OF TYLER PU 88,316 E4 WDG ENID WOODRING MUNI ENID OK CITY OF ENID PU 46,436


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 182 (Friday, September 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58262-58263]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31331; Amdt. No. 3922]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective September 18, 2020. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of September 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is
unnecessary.
    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies
the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective
dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

``significant rule'' under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the
same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 4, 2020.
Wade Terrell,
Aviation Safety Manager, Flight Procedures & Airspace Group Flight
Technologies and Procedures Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      AIRAC date           State              City                 Airport          FDC No.      FDC date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-Oct-20.............  GA             Montezuma...........  Dr C P Savage Sr....       0/4486      8/21/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-C.
8-Oct-20.............  CA             Red Bluff...........  Red Bluff Muni......       0/5587      8/27/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1A.
8-Oct-20.............  NH             Laconia.............  Laconia Muni........       0/7046      8/25/20  ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 1B.
8-Oct-20.............  NH             Laconia.............  Laconia Muni........       0/7047      8/25/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig-A.
8-Oct-20.............  NH             Laconia.............  Laconia Muni........       0/7049      8/25/20  RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-B.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-20628 Filed 9-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 7)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1148]
[DOCID:fr12ja09-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R10-OAR-2007-0915; FRL-8747-7]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon;
Salem Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Area; Designation of Areas for Air
Quality Planning Purposes

Correction

    In rule document E8-30825 beginning on page 79655 in the issue of
Tuesday, December 30, 2008, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 79655, in the third column, in the DATES section, in the
fourth line, ``January 29, 2008'' should read ``January 29, 2009''.

Sec. 81.338  [Corrected]

    2. On page 79661, in Sec.  81.338, in the table ``OREGON--CARBON
MONOXIDE'', in the ``Date'' column, both instances of ``3/2/08'' should
read ``3/2/09''

[FR Doc. Z8-30825 Filed 1-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60693-60694]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF16-5-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on August 17, 2016, Western Area Power
Administration

submitted a tariff filing: RMR_WACM_LAP_CRSP_174-20160817 (Formula Rate
Adjustment for Rocky Mountain Region Transmission Service, Ancillary
Services, Transmission Losses, and Sales of Surplus Products--Western
Area Power Administration--Rate Order No. WAPA-174), to be effective
10/1/2016.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 16, 2016.

    Dated: August 26, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21171 Filed 9-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P