Table 1 1. Green Power Partnership Respondent Burden for Year 1 Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs Lgl.* Mgr.* Tech.* Cler.* Respon. Labor Capital/

$ 153.56 $ 82.60 $ 66.47 $ 30.35 Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M Number of Total Total INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY per Hour per Hour per Hour per Hour Activity Year Cost Cost Respondents Hours/ Year Cost/ Year Letter of Intent Full scale Partners Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.25 4.67 $ 347.35 $ 0 $ 0 250 1,167.5 $ 86,838 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 250 62.5 $ 2,648 Provider Organization Partners Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.25 4.67 $ 347.35 $ 0 $ 0 0 0.0 $ 0 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 0 0.0 $ 0 SUBTOTAL 1,230 $ 89,485 Annual Information Reporting Forms Review and complete form ( One year after joining) a 0.25 1.00 1.33 0.00 2.58 $ 209.40 $ 0 $ 0 250 645.0 $ 52,350 Verify and update form ( existing partners) b 0.25 0.92 0.50 0.00 1.67 $ 147.62 $ 0 $ 0 250 417.5 $ 36,905 Submit form to EPA and file a copy ( One year after joining) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 $ 10.02 $ 0 $ 3 250 82.5 $ 3,255 Submit form to EPA and file a copy ( existing partners) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 250 62.5 $ 2,648 SUBTOTAL 1,207.5 $ 95,158 Information Updates and Follow ups Submit contact or profile information updates via Web c 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 33.24 $ 0 $ 0 188 93.8 $ 6,233 Clarify LOI or annual information via email or telephone interview d 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 16.62 $ 0 $ 0 325 81.3 $ 5,402 Provide additional technical information via email or telephone interview e 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 33.24 $ 0 $ 0 100 50.0 $ 3,324 SUBTOTAL 225.0 $ 14,958 TOTAL 750f 2,662.5 $ 199,601 c An estimated 25% of all GPP partners are likely to make web updates because there is a promotional GPP Partner Profile on each individual partner pag d 50% of new partners will require a follow up call for filling out the LOI and 40% of existing partners will require follow up to the yearly report. Each follow up call is estimated to take 15 minute e 100 GPP partners are expected to provide additional technical information to the Agency in 2005 f The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2005 is 750, including 500 existing full scale partners who submit annual forms and 250 new partners who submit LO * Labor rates for the respondent tables from three consultations with current GPP partners. Each partner offered a base hourly wage rate for legal, managerial, technical and clerical occupations. These consultations did not include benefits or overhead. A loaded labor rate to reflect benefits and overhead for the respondent organizations was calculated by applying a 110% factor to the average of the base rates received from the consultations.

a Partners must complete this form for the first time, one year after they join GPP. Assumes 250 partners joined in 2004 and submit the partner yearly form for the first time in 2005. Provider organization partners do not complete annual forms.

b Partners who submitted the partner yearly form in previous years receive a form already populated with their data and simply review and update their information. Assumes 250 partners previously completed the form and will update it in 2005. 1 1 Table 1 2. Green Power Partnership Respondent Burden for Year 2 Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs Lgl.* Mgr.* Tech.* Cler.* Respon. Labor Capital/ Number Number of Total $ 153.56 $ 82.60 $ 66.47 $ 30.35 Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M of Total Cost/

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY per Hour per Hour per Hour per Hour Activity Year Cost Cost Respondents Hours/ Year Year Letter of Intent Full scale Partners Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.25 4.67 $ 347.35 $ 0 $ 0 250 1,167.5 $ 86,838 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 250 62.5 $ 2,648 Provider Organization Partners Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.25 4.67 $ 347.35 $ 0 $ 0 25 116.8 $ 8,684 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 25 6.3 $ 265 SUBTOTAL 1,353 $ 98,434 Annual Information Reporting Forms Review and complete form ( One year after joining) a 0.25 1.00 1.33 0.00 2.58 $ 209.40 $ 0 $ 0 250 645.0 $ 52,350 Verify and update form ( existing partners) b 0.25 0.92 0.50 0.00 1.67 $ 147.62 $ 0 $ 0 500 835.0 $ 73,810 Submit form to EPA and file a copy ( One year after joining) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 $ 10.02 $ 0 $ 3 250 82.5 $ 3,255 Submit form to EPA and file a copy ( existing partners) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 500 125.0 $ 5,295 SUBTOTAL 1,687.5 $ 134,710 Information Updates and Follow ups Submit contact or profile information updates via Web c 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 33.24 $ 0 $ 0 256 128.1 $ 8,518 Clarify LOI or annual information via email or telephone interview d 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 16.62 $ 0 $ 0 438 109.4 $ 7,271 Provide additional technical information via email or telephone interview e 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 33.24 $ 0 $ 0 100 50.0 $ 3,324 SUBTOTAL 287.5 $ 19,113 TOTAL 1,025f 3,328.0 $ 252,257 c An estimated 25 percent of all GPP partners are likely to make web updates because there is a promotional GPP Partner Profile on each individual partner page.

d 50% of new partners will require a follow up call for filling out the LOI and 40% of existing partners will require follow up to the yearly report. Each follow up call is estimated to take 15 minutes.

e 100 GPP partners are expected to provide additional technical information to the Agency in 2006.

* Labor rates for the respondent tables from three consultations with current GPP partners. Each partner offered a base hourly wage rate for legal, managerial, technical and clerical occupations. These consultations did not include benefits or overhead. A loaded labor rate to reflect benefits and overhead for the respondent organizations was calculated by applying a 110% factor to the average of the base rates received from the consultations.

a Partners must complete this form for the first time, one year after they join GPP. Assumes 250 partners joined in 2005 and submit the partner yearly form for the first time in 2006. Provider organization partners do not complete annual forms.

b Partners who submitted the partner yearly form in previous years receive a form already populated with their data and simply review and update their information. Assumes 500 partners previously completed the form and will update it in 2006.

f The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2006 is 1,025, including 750 existing full scale partners who submit annual forms, 250 new full scale partners who submit LOI's, and 25 new provider partners who submit LOI's. 1 2 Table 1 3. Green Power Partnership Respondent Burden for Year 3 Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs Lgl. Mgr. Tech. Cler. Respon. Labor Capital/ Number Number of Total $ 153.56 $ 82.60 $ 66.47 $ 30.35 Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M of Total Cost/

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY per Hour per Hour per Hour per Hour Activity Year Cost Cost Respondents Hours/ Year Year Letter of Intent Full scale Partners Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.25 4.67 $ 347.35 $ 0 $ 0 300 1,401.0 $ 104,205 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 300 75.0 $ 3,177 Provider Organization Partners Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.25 4.67 $ 347.35 $ 0 $ 0 25 116.8 $ 8,684 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 25 6.3 $ 265 SUBTOTAL 1,599 $ 116,331 Annual Information Reporting Forms Review and complete form ( One year after joining) a 0.25 1.00 1.33 0.00 2.58 $ 209.40 $ 0 $ 0 250 645.0 $ 52,350 Verify and update form ( existing partners) b 0.25 0.92 0.50 0.00 1.67 $ 147.62 $ 0 $ 0 750 1,252.5 $ 110,715 Submit form to EPA and file a copy ( one year after joining) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 $ 10.02 $ 0 $ 3 250 82.5 $ 3,255 Submit form to EPA and file a copy ( existing partners) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 750 187.5 $ 7,943 SUBTOTAL 2,167.5 $ 174,263 Information Updates and Follow ups Submit contact or profile information updates via Web c 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 33.24 $ 0 $ 0 338 168.8 $ 11,219 Clarify LOI or annual information via email or telephone interview d 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 16.62 $ 0 $ 0 563 140.6 $ 9,349 Provide additional technical information via email or telephone interview e 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 33.24 $ 0 $ 0 100 50.0 $ 3,324 SUBTOTAL 359.4 $ 23,891 TOTAL 1,325f 4,125.9 $ 314,484 c An estimated 25 percent of all GPP partners are likely to make web updates because there is a promotional GPP Partner Profile on each individual partner page.

d 50% of new partners will require a follow up call for filling out the LOI and 40% of existing partners will require follow up to the yearly report. Each follow up call is estimated to take 15 minutes.

e 100 GPP partners are expected to provide additional technical information to the Agency in 2007.

* Labor rates for the respondent tables from three consultations with current GPP partners. Each partner offered a base hourly wage rate for legal, managerial, technical and clerical occupations. These consultations did not include benefits or overhead. A loaded labor rate to reflect benefits and overhead for the respondent organizations was calculated by applying a 110% factor to the average of the base rates received from the consultations.

a Partners must complete this form for the first time, one year after they join GPP. Assumes 250 partners joined in 2006 and submit the partner yearly form for the first time in 2007. Provider organization partners do not complete annual forms.

b Partners who submitted the partner yearly form in previous years receive a form already populated with their data and simply review and update their information. Assumes 750 partners previously completed the form and will update it in 2007.

f The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2007 is 1,325, including 1,000 existing full scale partners who submit annual forms, 300 new full scale partners who submit LOI's, and 25 new provider organization partners who submit LOI's. 1 3 Table 2 1. Green Power Partnership Agency ( EPA) Burden for Year 1 Mgr.* Tech.* Cler.* Agency Labor Capital/ Number Number of Total $ 67.26 $ 48.39 $ 21.23 Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M of Total Cost/

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Year Year Cost Cost Respondents Hours/ Year Year Letter of Intent From Full scale Partners Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 250 62.5 $ 3,025 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 250 62.5 $ 3,025 From Provider Organizations Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 0 0.0 $ 0 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 0 0.0 $ 0 SUBTOTAL 125.0 $ 6,050 Annual Information Reporting Forms Prepare and send annual forms to partners one year after they join a 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 3 250 62.5 $ 3,775 Prepare and send prepopulated forms to existing partners b 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 $ 17.40 $ 0 $ 3 250 125.0 $ 5,100 Review completed information form 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 500 125.0 $ 6,050 Enter information into database and file copy of the form 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 500 125.0 $ 6,050 SUBTOTAL 437.5 $ 20,975 Initiate Information Follow ups Call or email partner to request clarification of LOI or annual reporting form c 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 325 81.3 $ 3,933 Review and enter data after reciept of information 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 325 48.8 $ 2,360 Request additional technical information via e mail or telephone d 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 100 15.0 $ 726 Review and enter data after reciept of information 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 100 25.0 $ 1,210 SUBTOTAL 170.0 $ 8,228 Receive Information updates Review and enter contact or profile information updates received from partners via GPP Website e 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 188 28.1 $ 1,361 SUBTOTAL 28.1 $ 1,361 Annual management review of GPP programg 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 1,076.17 $ 0 $ 0 16.0 $ 1,076 TOTAL 750f 776.6 $ 37,690 c On average, the Agency must contact 50% of new partners regarding the LOI and 40% of existing partners regarding the yearly report. Each follow up call is estimated to take 15 minutes.

d The Agency expects to request 100 GPP partners to provide additional technical information in 2005.

e An estimated 25% of all GPP partners are likely to make web updates because there is a promotional GPP Partner Profile on each individual partner page. All updates must be reviewed by Agency staff.

f The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2005 is 750, including 500 existing full scale partners who submit annual forms and 250 new partners who submit LOI's.

g Assumed an annual EPA management review of Green Power Partnership program information collection activities and success.

* Agency labor rates were taken from the source table: 2004 GS Salary Table of Annual Rates by Grade and Step from the Office of Personnel Management. Manager rates assumed a GS level 15 step 5; technical rates assumed a GS level 13 step 1; clerical rates assumed a GS level 5 step 1. A loaded hourly wage to account for benefits and overhead was calculated from the annual rates given in the table according to the instructions in the ICR Handbook, p A 42. GS Hourly wage = [ GS annual salary($)/ 2080 ( hours/ year)]* 1.6 a Partners must complete this form for the first time, one year after they join GPP. Assumes 250 partners joined in 2004, whose forms will be reviewed for the first time in 2005. Provider organization partners do not complete annual forms.

b Partners who submitted the partner yearly form in previous years receive a form already populated with their data and simply review and update their information. Assumes 250 partners previously completed the form and will update it in 2005. Total Hours and Costs Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity 2 1 Table 2 2. Green Power Partnership Agency ( EPA) Burden for Year 2 Mgr.* Tech.* Cler.* Agency Labor Capital/ Number Number of Total $ 67.26 $ 48.39 $ 21.23 Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M of Total Cost/

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Year Year Cost Cost Respondents Hours/ Year Year Letter of Intent From Full scale Partners Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 250 62.5 $ 3,025 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.25 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 250 62.5 $ 3,025 From Provider Organizations Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 25 6.3 $ 303 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 25 6.3 $ 303 SUBTOTAL 137.5 $ 6,655 Annual Information Reporting Forms Prepare and send annual forms to partners one year after they joina 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 3 250 62.5 $ 3,775 Prepare and send prepopulated forms to existing partnersb 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 $ 17.40 $ 0 $ 3 500 250.0 $ 10,200 Review completed information form 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 750 187.5 $ 9,075 Enter information into database and file copy of the form 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 750 187.5 $ 9,075 SUBTOTAL 687.5 $ 32,125 Initiate Information Follow ups Call or email partner to request clarification of LOI or annual reporting form c 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 438 109.4 $ 5,294 Review and enter data after reciept of information 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 438 65.6 $ 3,176 Request additional technical information via e mail or telephoned 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 100 15.0 $ 726 Review and enter data after reciept of information 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 100 25.0 $ 1,210 SUBTOTAL 215.0 $ 10,406 Receive Information updates Review and enter contact or profile information updates received from partners via GPP Website e 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 256 38.4 $ 1,860 SUBTOTAL 38.4 $ 1,860 Annual management review of GPP programg 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 1,076.17 $ 0 $ 0 16.0 $ 1,076 TOTAL 1,025f 1,094.4 $ 52,123 c On average, the Agency must contact 50% of new partners regarding the LOI and 40% of existing partners regarding the yearly report. Each follow up call is estimated to take 15 minut d The Agency expects to request 100 GPP partners to provide additional technical information in 2006 e An estimated 25% of all GPP partners are likely to make web updates because there is a promotional GPP Partner Profile on each individual partner page. All updates must be reviewed by Agency st g Assumed an annual EPA management review of Green Power Partnership program information collection activities and success Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs f The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2006 is 1,025, including 750 existing full scale partners who submit annual forms, 250 new full scale partners who submit LOI's, and 25 new provider partners who submit LOI's.

* Agency labor rates were taken from the source table: 2004 GS Salary Table of Annual Rates by Grade and Step from the Office of Personnel Management. Manager rates assumed a GS level 15 step 5; technical rates assumed a GS level 13 step 1; clerical rates assumed a GS level 5 step 1. A loaded hourly wage to account for benefits and overhead was calculated from the annual rates given in the table according to the instructions in the ICR Handbook, p A 42. GS Hourly wage = [ GS annual salary($)/ 2080 ( hours/ year)]* 1.6 a Partners must complete this form for the first time, one year after they join GPP. Assumes 250 partners joined in 2005, which will be reviewed for the first time in 2006. Provider organization partners do not complete annual forms.

b Partners who submitted the partner yearly form in previous years receive a form already populated with their data and simply review and update their information. Assumes 500 partners previously completed the form and will update it in 2006. 2 2 Table 2 3. Green Power Partnership Agency ( EPA) Burden for Year 3 Mgr.* Tech.* Cler.* Agency Labor Capital/ Number Number of Total $ 67.26 $ 48.39 $ 21.23 Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M of Total Cost/

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Year Year Cost Cost Respondents Hours/ Year Year Letter of Intent From Full scale Partners Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 300 75.0 $ 3,630 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 300 75.0 $ 3,630 From Provider Organizations Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 25 6.3 $ 303 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 25 6.3 $ 303 SUBTOTAL 162.5 $ 7,865 Annual Information Reporting Forms Prepare and send annual forms to partners one year after they joina 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 3 250 62.5 $ 3,775 Prepare and send prepopulated forms to existing partnersb 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 $ 17.40 $ 0 $ 3 750 375.0 $ 15,300 Review completed information form 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 1,000 250.0 $ 12,100 Enter information into database and file copy of the form 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 1,000 250.0 $ 12,100 SUBTOTAL 937.5 $ 43,275 Initiate Information Follow ups Call or email partner to request clarification of LOI or annual reporting form c 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 563 140.6 $ 6,806 Review and enter data after reciept of information 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 563 84.4 $ 4,084 Request additional technical information via e mail or telephoned 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 100 15.0 $ 726 Review and enter data after reciept of information 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 100 25.0 $ 1,210 SUBTOTAL 265.0 $ 12,826 Receive Information updates Review and enter contact or profile information updates received from partners via GPP Website e 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 338 50.6 $ 2,450 SUBTOTAL 50.6 $ 2,450 Annual management review of GPP programg 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 1,076.17 $ 0 $ 0 16.0 $ 1,076 TOTAL 1,325f 1,431.6 $ 67,492 c On average, the Agency must contact 50% of new partners regarding the LOI and 40% of existing partners regarding the yearly report. Each follow up call is estimated to take 15 minut d The Agency expects to request 100 GPP partners to provide additional technical information in 2006 e An estimated 25% of all GPP partners are likely to make web updates because there is a promotional GPP Partner Profile on each individual partner page. All updates must be reviewed by Agency st g Assumed an annual EPA management review of Green Power Partnership program information collection activities and success Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs * Agency labor rates were taken from the source table: 2004 GS Salary Table of Annual Rates by Grade and Step from the Office of Personnel Management. Manager rates assumed a GS level 15 step 5; technical rates assumed a GS level 13 step 1; clerical rates assumed a GS level 5 step 1. A loaded hourly wage to account for benefits and overhead was calculated from the annual rates given in the table according to the instructions in the ICR Handbook, p A 42. GS Hourly wage = [ GS annual salary($)/ 2080 ( hours/ year)]* 1.6 f The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2007 is 1,325, including 1,000 existing full scale partners who submit annual forms, 300 new full scale partners who submit LOI's, and 25 new provider organization partners who submit LOI's.

a Partners must complete this form for the first time, one year after they join GPP. Assumes 250 partners joined in 2006, which will be reviewed for the first time in 2007. Provider organization partners do not complete annual forms.

b Partners who submitted the partner yearly form in previous years receive a form already populated with their data and simply review and update their information. Assumes 750 partners previously completed the form and will update it in 2007. 2 3 Table 3 1. CHP Partnership Respondent Burden for Year 1 Partner Group Lgl $ per Hour Mgr. $ per Hour Tech. $ per Hour Cler. $ per Hour Gov't* $ 67.26 $ 67.26 $ 48.40 $ 21.23 O & M INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Company/ Institution** $ 153.56 $ 82.60 $ 66.47 $ 30.35 Cost Letter of Intent State/ Local/ Tribal Partners a Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.25 4.67 $ 252.24 $ 0 $ 0 3 1 14.0 $ 757 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 5.31 $ 0 $ 3 3 1 0.8 $ 25 Company and Institutional Partners b Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.25 4.67 $ 347.35 $ 0 $ 0 25 1 116.8 $ 8,684 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 3 25 1 6.3 $ 265 SUBTOTAL 138 $ 9,730 CHP Project Reporting Forms Review form and instructions and complete form ( new partners) c 0.00 0.67 1.33 0.00 2.00 $ 143.75 $ 0 $ 0 21 1 42.0 $ 3,019 Verify and update spreadsheet ( existing partners) d 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 1.67 $ 121.81 $ 0 $ 0 87 2 290.6 $ 21,195 Submit spreadsheet to EPA electronically and file a copy 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 9.97 $ 0 $ 0 87 2 26.1 $ 1,735 Submit form to EPA via mail and file a copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 21 1 5.3 $ 222 SUBTOTAL 363.9 $ 26,171 Information Updates and Follow ups Submit contact or profile information updates via Web e 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 16.62 $ 0 $ 0 28 1 7.1 $ 469 Clarify LOI or project information via email or telephone interview f 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 16.62 $ 0 $ 0 34 1 8.5 $ 565 SUBTOTAL 15.6 $ 1,034 TOTAL 115g 517.2 $ 36,935 a Assumed 10 new state partners during the three year ICR period. 3 new partners in 2005.

b Assumed 25 new commercial/ institutional partners in the year 2005, spread evenly among project developers, end users, consulting engineers, equipment manufacturers, and utilities.

e Assumed 15% of new and existing partners in the year 2005 ( 188 projected total partners), will update their information over the CHP website sometime during the calendar year.

g The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2005 is 115, including 87 existing partners who are expected to complete project reporting spreadsheets, 25 new company and institutional partners who will fill out both a LOI and project reporting form, and 3 state/ local/ tribal government partners who will complete an LOI.

d All Project developers, ESCOs, consulting engineers, and equipment manufacturers, and 25% of utilities review their project information and provide updates every 6 months. Of the estimated 160 partners at the end of 2004, 87 partners belong to these categories. They will receive a spreadsheet already populated with their project data twice a year and will verify and update their project information on this spreadsheet in 2005.

c Assumed all new end users, project developers, consulting engineers, and equipment manufacturers ( 5 of each partner category) who join in 2005 will fill out a project form. Assumed 25% of the 5 utility partners who join in 2005 ( i. e. 1 utility) will fill out a project form. New state partners do not fiill out project forms.

* Labor rates for EPA personnel were used for all public sector personnel, including employees of State/ Local/ Tribal agencies. Source for EPA labor rates: Office of Personnel Management: 2004 GS Salary Table of Annual Rates by Grade and Step, http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 04tables/ html/ gs. asp. Legal and manager rates assumed a GS level 15 step 5; technical rates assumed a GS level 13 step 1; clerical rates assumed a GS level 5 step 1. A loaded hourly wage to account for benefits and overhead was calculated from the annual rates given in the table according to the instructions in the ICR Handbook, p A 42. GS Hourly wage = [ GS annual salary($)/ 2080 ( hours/ year)]* 1.6 ** Labor rates for the company and institutional respondent tables came from three consultations with current CHP partners. Each partner offered a base hourly wage rate for managerial, technical and clerical occupations. These consultations did not include benefits or overhead. A loaded labor rate to reflect benefits and overhead for the respondent organizations was calculated by applying a 110% factor to the average of the base rates received from the consultations.

Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs Total Cost/ Yr f Assumed 25% of the 28 new partners completing their LOI ( i. e. 7 partners) will require follow up. Additionally, 25% of partners of the 108 partners completing CHP project forms or spreadsheets ( i. e. 27 partners) will require follow up in order to correctly complete the form. Respon

dent Hours Labor Cost Capital/

Startup Cost Number of Respon

dents Total Hrs/ Yr Frequency of Response 3 1 Table 3 2. CHP Partnership Respondent Burden for Year 2 Partner Group Lgl $ per Hour Mgr. $ per Hour Tech. $ per Hour Cler. $ per Hour Gov't* $ 67.26 $ 67.26 $ 48.39 $ 21.20 INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Company/ Institution** $ 153.56 $ 82.60 $ 66.47 $ 30.35 Letter of Intent State/ Local/ Tribal Partners a Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.25 4.67 $ 252.20 $ 0 $ 0 3 1 14.0 $ 757 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 5.30 $ 0 $ 3 3 1 0.8 $ 25 Company and Institutional Partners b Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.25 4.67 $ 347.35 $ 0 $ 0 25 1 116.8 $ 8,684 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 3 25 1 6.3 $ 265 SUBTOTAL 138 $ 9,730 CHP Project Reporting Forms Review form and instructions and complete form ( new partners) c 0.00 0.67 1.33 0.00 2.00 $ 143.75 $ 0 $ 0 21 2 85.0 $ 6,109 Verify and update spreadsheet ( existing partners) d 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 1.67 $ 121.81 $ 0 $ 0 103 2 344.0 $ 25,093 Submit spreadsheet to EPA electronically and file a copy 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 9.97 $ 0 $ 0 103 2 30.9 $ 2,054 Submit form to EPA via mail and file a copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 21 1 5.3 $ 225 SUBTOTAL 465.2 $ 33,481 Information Updates and Follow ups Submit contact or profile information updates via Web e 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 16.62 $ 0 $ 0 32 1 8.1 $ 538 Clarify LOI or project information via email or telephone interviewf 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 16.62 $ 0 $ 0 38 1 9.5 $ 633 SUBTOTAL 17.6 $ 1,171 TOTAL 131g 620.6 $ 44,382 a Assumed 10 new state partners during the three year ICR period. 3 new partners in 2006 b Assumed 25 new commercial/ institutional partners in the year 2006, spread evenly among project developers, end users, consulting engineers, equipment manufacturers, and utilitie e Assumed 15% of new and existing partners in the year 2006 ( 216 projected total partners), will update their information over the CHP website sometime during the calendar ye g The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2006 is 131, including 103 existing partners who are expected to complete project reporting spreadsheets, 25 new company and institutional partners who will fill out both a LOI and project reporting form, and 3 state/ local/ tribal government partners who will complete an LOI.

c Assumed all new end users, project developers, consulting engineers, and equipment manufacturers ( 5 of each partner category) who join in 2006 will fill out a project form. Assumed 25% of the 5 utility partners who join 2006 ( i. e. 1 utility) will fill out a project form. New state partners do not fiill out project forms.

d All Project developers, ESCOs, consulting engineers, and equipment manufacturers, and 25% of utilities review their project information and provide updates every 6 months. Of the estimated 188 partners at the end of 2005, 103 partners belong to these categories. They will receive a spreadsheet already populated with their project data twice a year and will verify and update their project information on this spreadsheet in 2006.

* Labor rates for EPA personnel were used for all public sector personnel, including employees of State/ Local/ Tribal agencies. Source for EPA labor rates: Office of Personnel Management: 2004 GS Salary Table of Annual Rates by Grade and Step, http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 04tables/ html/ gs. asp. Manager rates assumed a GS level 15 step 5; technical rates assumed a GS level 13 step 1; clerical rates assumed a GS level 5 step 1. A loaded hourly wage to account for benefits and overhead was calculated from the annual rates given in the table according to the instructions in the ICR Handbook, p A 42. GS Hourly wage = [ GS annual salary($)/ 2080 ( hours/ year)]* 1.6 ** Labor rates for the company and institutional respondent tables came from three consultations with current CHP partners. Each partner offered a base hourly wage rate for managerial,

technical and clerical occupations. These consultations did not include benefits or overhead. A loaded labor rate to reflect benefits and overhead for the respondent organizations was calculated by applying a 110% factor to the average of the base rates received from the consultations.

f Assumed 25% of the 28 new partners completing their LOI ( i. e. 7 partners) will require followup. Additionally, 25% of the 124 partners completing CHP project forms or spreadsheets ( i. e. 31 partners) will require follow up in order to correctly complete the form. Total Hours and Costs Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Cost/ Yr Labor Cost Total Hrs/ Yr O & M Cost Frequency of Response Respon

dent Hours Capital/

Startup Cost Number of Respon dents 3 2 Table 3 3. CHP Partnership Respondent Burden for Year 3 Partner Group Lgl $ per Hour Mgr. $ per Hour Tech. $ per Hour Cler. $ per Hour Gov't* $ 67.26 $ 67.26 $ 48.39 $ 21.23 INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Company/ Institution** $ 153.56 $ 82.60 $ 66.47 $ 30.35 Letter of Intent State/ Local/ Tribal Partners a Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.25 4.67 $ 252.21 $ 0 $ 0 4 1 18.7 $ 1,009 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 5.31 $ 0 $ 3 4 1 1.0 $ 33 Company and Institutional Partners b Review and complete LOI 0.25 1.50 2.67 0.17 4.59 $ 344.92 $ 0 $ 0 25 1 114.8 $ 8,623 Submit LOI to EPA and file copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 $ 10.02 $ 3 25 1 8.3 $ 326 SUBTOTAL 143 $ 9,991 CHP Project Reporting Forms Review form and instructions and complete form ( new partners) c 0.00 0.67 1.33 0.00 2.00 $ 143.75 $ 0 $ 0 21 2 85.0 $ 6,109 Verify and update spreadsheet ( existing partners) d 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 1.67 $ 121.81 $ 0 $ 0 119 2 397.5 $ 28,991 Submit spreadsheet to EPA electronically and file a copy 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 9.97 $ 0 $ 0 119 2 35.7 $ 2,373 Submit form to EPA via mail and file a copy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 7.59 $ 0 $ 3 21 1 5.3 $ 225 SUBTOTAL 523.5 $ 37,698 Information Updates and Follow ups Submit contact or profile information updates via Web e 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 16.62 $ 0 $ 0 37 1 9.2 $ 608 Clarify LOI or project information via email or telephone interview f 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 16.62 $ 0 $ 0 42 1 10.6 $ 703 SUBTOTAL 19.7 $ 1,312 TOTAL 148g 685.9 $ 49,000 a Assumed 10 new state partners during the three year ICR period. 4 new partners in 2007 b Assumed 25 new commercial/ institutional partners in the year 2007, spread evenly among project developers, end users, consulting engineers, equipment manufacturers, and utilitie e Assumed 15% of new and existing partners in the year 2007 ( 244 projected total partners), will update their information over the CHP website sometime during the calendar ye Frequency of Response g The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2007 is 148, including 119 existing partners who are expected to complete project reporting spreadsheets, 25 new company and institutional partners who will fill out both a LOI and project reporting form, and 4 state/ local/ tribal government partners who will complete an LOI.

c Assumed all new end users, project developers, consulting engineers, and equipment manufacturers ( 5 of each partner category) who join in 2007 will fill out a project form. Assumed 25% of the 5 utility partners who join in 2007 ( i. e. 1 utility) will fill out a project form. New state partners do not fiill out project forms.

d All Project developers, ESCOs, consulting engineers, and equipment manufacturers, and 25% of utilities review their project information and provide updates every 6 months. Of the 217 partners at the end of 2006, 1 partners belong to these categories. They will receive a spreadsheet already populated with their project data and will verify and update their project information on a this spreadsheet in 2007.

* Labor rates for EPA personnel were used for all public sector personnel, including employees of State/ Local/ Tribal agencies. Source for EPA labor rates: Office of Personnel Management: 2004 GS Salary Table of Annual Rates by Grade and Step http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 04tables/ html/ gs. asp. Manager rates assumed a GS level 15 step 5; technical rates assumed a GS level 13 step 1; clerical rates assumed a GS level 5 step 1.

A loaded hourly wage to account for benefits and overhead was calculated from the annual rates given in the table according to the instructions in the ICR Handbook, p A 42. GS Hourly wage = [ GS annual salary($)/ 2080 ( hours/ year)]* 1.6 ** Labor rates for the company and institutional respondent tables came from three consultations with current CHP partners. Each partner offered a base hourly wage rate for managerial, technical and clerical occupations. These consultations did not include benefits or overhead. A loaded labor rate to reflect benefits and overhead for the respondent organizations was calculated by applying a 110% factor to the average of the base rates received from the consultations Total Hours and Costs Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity f Assumed 25% of the 28 new partners completing their LOI ( i. e. 7 partners) will require followup. Additionally, 25% of the 140 partners completing CHP project forms or spreadsheets ( i. e. 35 partners) will require followup in order to correctly complete the form. Total Cost/ Yr Labor Cost Total Hrs/ Yr O & M Cost Respon

dent Hours Capital/

Startup Cost Number of Respon

dents 3 3 Table 4 1. CHP Parnership Agency ( EPA) Burden for Year 1 Mgr.* Tech.* Cler.* Agency Labor Capital/ Number Number of Total $ 67.26 $ 48.39 $ 21.23 Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M of Responses/ Total Cost/

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Respondents Year Hours/ Year Year Letter of Intent From State/ Local/ Tribal Partners Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 3 1 0.8 $ 36 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 3 1 0.8 $ 36 From Company and Institutional Partners Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 25 1 6.3 $ 303 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 25 1 6.3 $ 303 SUBTOTAL 14.0 $ 678 CHP Project Information Reporting Forms Prepare and send information form a 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 3 21 1 5.3 $ 317 Prepare and send information spreadsheet to existing partners b 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 24.19 $ 0 $ 0 87 2 87.0 $ 4,209 Review completed information form 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 24.19 $ 0 $ 0 21 1 10.5 $ 508 Review completed information spreadsheet 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 24.19 $ 0 $ 0 87 2 87.0 $ 4,209 Enter information from form into database and file copy of the form 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 21 1 5.3 $ 254 Enter information from spreadsheet into database and file copy of the spreadsheet 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 87 2 43.5 $ 2,105 SUBTOTAL 238.5 $ 11,603 Initiate Information updates Call or email partner to request clarification of LOI or project reporting form c 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 34 1 8.5 $ 411 Review and enter data after receipt of information 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 34 1 8.5 $ 411 SUBTOTAL 17.0 $ 823 Receive Information updates Review and enter contact or profile information updates received from partners via CHP Website d 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 28 1 4.2 $ 205 SUBTOTAL 4.2 $ 205 Annual management review of CHP program f 8.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 538.09 8.0 $ 538 TOTAL 115e 281.7 $ 13,846 d Assumed 15% of new and existing partners in the year 2005 ( 188 projected total partners), will update their information over the CHP website sometime during the calendar year.

f Assumed an annual EPA management review of CHP Partnership program information collection activities and success.

Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs e The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2005 is 115, including 87 existing partners who are expected to complete project reporting spreadsheets, 25 new company and institutional partners who will fill out both a LOI and project reporting form, and 3 state/ local/ tribal government partners who will complete an LOI.

a Partners will receive this project form during the same year they join the CHP partnership. Assumes 25 new commercial/ institutional partners join in 2005. All new end users, project developers, consulting engineers,

and equipment manufacturers ( 5 of each partner category) who join in 2005 will fill out a project form. 25% of the 5 utility partners who join in 2005 ( i. e., 1 utility) will fill out a project form. New state partners do not fill out project forms.

b All Project developers, ESCOs, consulting engineers, and equipment manufacturers, and 25% of utilities review their project information and provide updates every 6 months. Of the estimated 160 partners at the end of 2004, 87 partners belong to these categories. The agency will send these partners a spreadsheet already populated with their project data twice a year and the Agency will update information in the database based on any changes partners provide in this spreadsheet in 2005.

* Agency labor rates were taken from the source table: 2004 GS Salary Table of Annual Rates by Grade and Step from the Office of Personnel Management. Manager rates assumed a GS level 15 step 5; technical rates assumed a GS level 13 step 1; clerical rates assumed a GS level 5 step 1. A loaded hourly wage to account for benefits and overhead was calculated from the annual rates given in the table according to the instructions in the ICR Handbook, p A 42. GS Hourly wage = [ GS annual salary($)/ 2080 ( hours/ year)]* 1.6 c Assumed 25% of the 28 new partners completing their LOI ( i. e., 7 new partners) will require followup. Additionally, 25% of the 108 partners completing CHP project forms or spreadsheets ( i. e., 27 partners) will require follow up in order to correctly complete the form. 4 1 Table 4 2. CHP Parnership Agency ( EPA) Burden for Year 2 Mgr.* Tech.* Cler.* Agency Labor Capital/ Number Number of Total $ 67.26 $ 48.39 $ 21.23 Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M of Responses/ Total Cost/

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Respondents Year Hours/ Year Year Letter of Intent From State/ Local/ Tribal Partners Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 3 1 0.8 $ 36 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 3 1 0.8 $ 36 From Company and Institutional Partners Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 25 1 6.3 $ 303 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 25 1 6.3 $ 303 SUBTOTAL 14.0 $ 678 CHP Project Information Reporting Forms Prepare and send information form a 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 3 21 1 5.3 $ 321 Prepare and send information spreadsheet to existing partners b 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 24.19 $ 0 $ 0 103 2 103.0 $ 4,983 Review completed information form 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 24.19 $ 0 $ 0 21 1 10.6 $ 514 Review completed information spreadsheet 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 24.19 $ 0 $ 0 103 2 103.0 $ 4,983 Enter information from form into database and file copy of the form 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 21 1 5.3 $ 257 Enter information from spreadsheet into database and file copy of the spreadsheet 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 103 2 51.5 $ 2,493 SUBTOTAL 278.8 $ 13,551 Initiate Information updates Call or email partner to request clarification of LOI or project reporting form c 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 38 1 9.5 $ 461 Review and enter data after receipt of information 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 38 1 9.5 $ 461 SUBTOTAL 19.0 $ 921 Receive Information updates Review and enter contact or profile information updates received from partners via CHP Website d 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 32 1 4.9 $ 235 SUBTOTAL 4.9 $ 235 Annual management review of CHP program f 8.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 538.09 $ 0 $ 0 8.0 $ 538 TOTAL 131e 324.6 $ 15,923 d Assumed 15% of new and existing partners in the year 2006 ( 216 projected total partners), will update their information over the CHP website sometime during the calendar year.

f Assumed an annual EPA management review of CHP Partnership program information collection activities and success.

Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs e The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2006 is 131, including 103 existing partners who are expected to complete project reporting spreadsheets, 25 new company and institutional partners who will fill out both a LOI and project reporting form, and 3 state/ local/ tribal government partners who will complete an LOI.

a Partners will receive this project form during the same year they join the CHP partnership. Assumes 25 new commercial/ institutional partners join in 2006. All new end users, project developers, ESCOs, consulting engineers, and equipment manufacturers ( 5 of each partner category) who join in 2006 will fill out a project form. 25% of the 5 utility partners who join in 2006 ( i. e., 1 utility) will fill out a project form. New state partners do not fill out project forms.

b All Project developers, consulting engineers, and equipment manufacturers, and 25% of utilities review their project information and provide updates every 6 months. Of the estimated 188 partners at the end of 2005,

103 partners belong to these categories. The agency will send these partners a spreadsheet already populated with their project data twice a year and the Agency will update information in the database based on any changes partners provide in this spreadsheet in 2006.

* Agency labor rates were taken from the source table: 2004 GS Salary Table of Annual Rates by Grade and Step from the Office of Personnel Management. Manager rates assumed a GS level 15 step 5; technical rates assumed a GS level 13 step 1; clerical rates assumed a GS level 5 step 1. A loaded hourly wage to account for benefits and overhead was calculated from the annual rates given in the table according to the instructions in the ICR Handbook, p A 42. GS Hourly wage = [ GS annual salary($)/ 2080 ( hours/ year)]* 1.6 c Assumed 25% of the 28 new partners completing their LOI ( i. e., 7 new partners) will require followup. Additionally, 25% of the 124 partners completing CHP project forms or spreadsheets ( i. e., 31 partners) will require follow up in order to correctly complete the form. 4 2 Table 4 3. CHP Parnership Agency ( EPA) Burden for Year 3 Mgr.* Tech.* Cler. Agency Labor Capital/ Number Number of Total $ 67.26 $ 48.39 $ 21.23 Hours/ Cost/ Startup O & M of Responses/ Total Cost/

INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Hour Hour Hour Year Year Cost Cost Respondents Year Hours/ Year Year Letter of Intent From State/ Local/ Tribal Partners Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 4 1 1.0 $ 48 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 4 1 1.0 $ 48 From Company and Institutional Partners Review LOI 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 25 1 6.3 $ 303 Enter LOI information into Upshot/ database 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 25 1 6.3 $ 303 SUBTOTAL 14.5 $ 702 CHP Project Information Reporting Forms Prepare and send information form a 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 3 21 1 5.3 $ 321 Prepare and send information spreadsheet to existing partners b 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 24.19 $ 0 $ 0 119 2 119.0 $ 5,757 Review completed information form 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 24.19 $ 0 $ 0 21 1 10.6 $ 514 Review completed information spreadsheet 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 24.19 $ 0 $ 0 119 2 119.0 $ 5,757 Enter information from form into database and file copy of the form 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 21 1 5.3 $ 257 Enter information from spreadsheet into database and file copy of the spreadsheet 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 119 2 59.5 $ 2,880 SUBTOTAL 318.8 $ 15,486 Initiate Information updates Call or email partner to request clarification of LOI or project reporting form c 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 42 1 10.6 $ 512 Review and enter data after receipt of information 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 12.10 $ 0 $ 0 42 1 10.6 $ 512 SUBTOTAL 21.2 $ 1,024 Receive Information updates Review and enter contact or profile information updates received from partners via CHP Website d 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 $ 7.26 $ 0 $ 0 37 1 5.5 $ 266 SUBTOTAL 5.5 $ 266 Annual management review of CHP program f 8.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 538.09 $ 0 $ 0 8.0 $ 538 TOTAL 148e 367.9 $ 18,016 d Assumed 15% of new and existing partners in the year 2007 ( 244 projected total partners), will update their information over the CHP website sometime during the calendar year.

f Assumed an annual EPA management review of CHP Partnership program information collection activities and success.

Hours and Costs Per Respondent Per Activity Total Hours and Costs e The total number of unique respondents submitting information in 2007 is 148, including 119 existing partners who are expected to complete project reporting spreadsheets, 25 new company and institutional partners who will fill out both a LOI and project reporting form, and 4 state/ local/ tribal government partners who will complete an LOI.

b All Project developers, consulting engineers, and equipment manufacturers, and 25% of utilities review their project information and provide updates every 6 months. Of the estimated 217 partners at the end of 2006,

119 partners belong to these categories. The agency will send these partners a spreadsheet already populated with their project data twice a year and the Agency will update information in the database based on any changes partners provide in this spreadsheet in 2007.

a Partners will receive this project form during the same year they join the CHP partnership. Assumes 25 new commercial/ institutional partners join in 2007. All new end users, project developers, ESCOs, consulting engineers, and equipment manufacturers ( 5 of each partner category) who join in 2006 will fill out a project form. 25% of the 5 utility partners who join in 2006 ( i. e., 1 utility) will fill out a project form. New state partners do not fill out project forms.

* Agency labor rates were taken from the source table: 2004 GS Salary Table of Annual Rates by Grade and Step from the Office of Personnel Management. Manager rates assumed a GS level 15 step 5; technical rates assumed a GS level 13 step 1; clerical rates assumed a GS level 5 step 1. A loaded hourly wage to account for benefits and overhead was calculated from the annual rates given in the table according to the instructions in the ICR Handbook, p A 42. GS Hourly wage = [ GS annual salary($)/ 2080 ( hours/ year)]* 1.6 c Assumed 25% of the 28 new partners completing their LOI ( i. e. 7 partners) will require followup. Additionally, 25% of the 140 partners completing CHP project forms or spreadsheets ( i. e. 35 partners) will require followup in order to correctly complete the form. 4 3


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26178]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10011]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1649; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-6]

Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E
Airspace; Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH, and Amendment of
Class E Airspace; Columbus, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on June 24, 2015, proposing to amend Class D and Class E
airspace and remove Class E airspace in the Columbus, OH, area. The FAA
has determined that withdrawal of that NPRM is warranted as a second
NPRM for the same airspace action was issued in July 2015.

DATES: May 2, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An NPRM was published in the Federal
Register of June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36265), to amend Title 14 Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71, by amending Class D and Class E
airspace and removing Class E airspace in the Columbus, OH area. The
proposed action was due to the decommissioning of the Dan Scott non-
directional beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the NDB approach at Ohio
State University Airport, Columbus, OH. A second NPRM was published in
the Federal Register of July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42434), proposing the same
airspace actions and followed by a final rule published in the Federal
Register of October 20, 2015 (80 FR 63426), acknowledging only the
second NPRM. Therefore, the first NPRM issued is being withdrawn.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

    In consideration of the foregoing, the NPRM for FR Doc. FAA-2015-
1649, Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-6, as published in the Federal
Register of June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36265) (FR Doc. 2015-15461), is hereby
withdrawn.

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 19, 2016.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-10011 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12974-12975]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2023-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2316]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before May 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2316, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and

other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific
and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of
the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have
been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60
days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Community                Community map repository address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Dyer County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 18-04-0035S Preliminary Date: October 27, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Dyersburg.................  City Hall, 425 West Court Street,
                                     Dyersburg, TN 38024.
Unincorporated Areas of Dyer        Dyer County Building and Zoning,
 County.                             1910 Pioneer Road, Dyersburg, TN
                                     38024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Collin County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 20-06-0102S Preliminary Date: October 18, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Dallas....................  Dallas Water Utilities, Stormwater
                                     Operations, 320 East Jefferson
                                     Boulevard, Room 312, Dallas, TX
                                     75203.
City of Plano.....................  Municipal Center, 1520 K Avenue,
                                     Suite 250, Plano, TX 75074.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-04171 Filed 2-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Agenda

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

12pm – 4pm

12:00 (EST)	Welcome and Introductions

Mark Joyce, Associate Director

 GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer

Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Acting Director

U.S. EPA Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Diane Austin, Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Board Members

12:30 – 12:40	Overview of Agenda

Diane Austin, Chair

		Good Neighbor Environmental Board

12:40 – 1:40	Discussion of Meetings, Report Process and Timeline

Budget

Upcoming meetings

Reports

1:40 – 3:50	Discussion on Report

Topic

Moving forward

3:50 – 4:00	Public Comments

4:00		Adjourn


                                   Fact Sheet
         Maritime
Employment
  Fact Sheet
         Maritime
Employment
AWARENESS OF SURROUNDINGS
Maritime facilities are filled with many hazards because of their constantly changing environment. As an employee, you are exposed to these hazards daily, and having an awareness of your surroundings is critically important in keeping yourself and others safe.

Many times the hazards of working a specific job, such as lashing containers or conducting a weld repair, are examined and minimized through a job hazard analysis (JHA). Typically, this involves walking the worksite, identifying the hazards, and then making an assessment on how to mitigate the hazards. There are forms and plans on conducting a JHA available from multiple sources and your employer should pick the best one appropriate for the type of work.

However, JHAs do not typically cover hazards encountered when walking to and leaving your worksite. Incidents such as slips, trips, and falls can occur when returning to your shop or even leaving the facility, resulting in severe injuries that contribute to lost workdays. For example, one shipyard reported averaging almost three to-and-from injuries a week resulting in 60 recordable injuries and 380 lost workdays per year.

Attention to Your Surroundings Can Help Reduce Injuries.

Many times, workplace injuries are caused by a lack of focus and attention to the surrounding area. You may assume that just because you are off the job and walking to or returning from the work site that learned safety practices do not apply.  However, that is quite the opposite; walking is working.

Listed below are some examples of everyday situations that could result in injury or death:

     You just left a ship you were working on. While walking, you begin to think of all the household chores you need to accomplish once you get home.  As a result, you inadvertently stray from the designated shipyard pedestrian path and are stuck by a work vehicle.

     You were in such a rush to clock out for the day that you forgot to put away the equipment you were using and a worker from another shift tripped on it, resulting in a head contusion.

     You are walking on staging and are readjusting your hearing protection. You lose focus and slip, falling to a lower level.

 Following the best practices below can help to prevent to and from incidents, maintaining a safe work environment for you and others:

    Take ownership of your actions & work area.

    Walk in designated areas that are free of hazards and clearly marked.

    Stay focused. While easy to say, it is difficult to put into practice.

    Don't walk distracted. Think about where you are and be aware of your surroundings. Keep your eyes and ears open.

    Don't run.  Rushing can lead to injuries.

    Use handrails when ascending and descending stairs.

    Maintain three points of contact when utilizing a ladder.

    Ensure there is adequate lighting to see your surroundings.

    Avoid walking through congested areas and use designated walkways! If it is necessary to walk through a congested area, keep a lookout for potential hazards.

    Allow ample time to make it to where you have to go and don't take shortcuts, which can result in injuries.

    Be aware of equipment that is above, near, and below you.

    Pay attention to walking surface conditions, such as water, snow, ice, sand, blast grit, oil, or other slip hazards.

    Obey all installed barriers, ropes, and cordoned-off areas.

    Do not walk while using a cell phone. Find a safe area and stand in place.

    Report unsafe conditions. It is not enough to know an unsafe condition exists. If you see something, say something so that the unsafe condition can be corrected to prevent others from being injured.

Your safety should be considered first, last, and always!


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53671-53672]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2166]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2166, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Miami-Dade County, Florida and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 15-04-4157S Preliminary Date: February 25, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Aventura.......................  Community Development
                                          Department, 19200 West Country
                                          Club Drive, Aventura, FL
                                          33180.
City of Coral Gables...................  City Hall--Building Division,
                                          405 Biltmore Way, 3rd Floor,
                                          Coral Gables, FL 33134.
City of Doral..........................  Building Department, 8401
                                          Northwest 53rd Terrace, Doral,
                                          FL 33166.
City of Florida City...................  Building Department, 404 West
                                          Palm Drive, Florida City, FL
                                          33034.
City of Hialeah........................  Building Department, 501 Palm
                                          Avenue, Hialeah, FL 33010.
City of Hialeah Gardens................  City Hall, 10001 Northwest 87th
                                          Avenue, Hialeah Gardens, FL
                                          33016.
City of Homestead......................  City Hall--Building and Safety
                                          Division, 100 Civic Court,
                                          Homestead, FL 33030.
City of Miami..........................  Planning and Zoning Building
                                          Department, 444 Southwest 2nd
                                          Avenue, 4th Floor, Miami, FL
                                          33130.
City of Miami Beach....................  Building Department, 1700
                                          Convention Center Drive, Miami
                                          Beach, FL 33139.
City of Miami Gardens..................  Building Department, 18605
                                          Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami
                                          Gardens, FL 33056.
City of Miami Springs..................  Building Department, 201
                                          Westward Drive, Miami Springs,
                                          FL 33166.
City of North Bay Village..............  City Hall--Building Department,
                                          1666 79th Street Causeway, 3rd
                                          Floor, North Bay Village, FL
                                          33141.
City of North Miami....................  Public Works Department, 776
                                          Northeast 125th Street, 3rd
                                          Floor, North Miami, FL 33161.
City of North Miami Beach..............  Building, Planning, and Zoning
                                          Department, 17050 Northeast
                                          19th Avenue, 1st Floor, North
                                          Miami Beach, FL 33162.
City of Opa-Locka......................  Building Department, 780
                                          Fisherman Street, 4th Floor,
                                          Opa-Locka, FL 33054.
City of South Miami....................  Planning and Zoning Department,
                                          6130 Sunset Drive, South
                                          Miami, FL 33143.
City of Sunny Isles Beach..............  Building Department, 3rd Floor,
                                          18070 Collins Avenue, Sunny
                                          Isles Beach, FL 33160.
City of Sweetwater.....................  Engineering Division, 1701
                                          Northwest 112th Avenue, Unit
                                          103, Sweetwater, FL 33172.
City of West Miami.....................  Public Works Department, 901
                                          Southwest 62nd Avenue, West
                                          Miami, FL 33144.
Town of Bay Harbor Islands.............  Building Department, 9665 Bay
                                          Harbor Terrace, Bay Harbor
                                          Islands, FL 33154.
Town of Cutler Bay.....................  Public Works Department, 10720
                                          Caribbean Boulevard, Suite
                                          105, Cutler Bay, FL 33189.
Town of Golden Beach...................  Building Department, 1 Golden
                                          Beach Drive, Golden Beach, FL
                                          33160.
Town of Medley.........................  Town Hall, 7777 Northwest 72nd
                                          Avenue, Medley, FL 33166.
Town of Miami Lakes....................  Town Hall, 6601 Main Street,
                                          Miami Lakes, FL 33014.
Town of Surfside.......................  Building Department, 9293
                                          Harding Avenue, Surfside, FL
                                          33154.
Unincorporated Areas of Miami-Dade       Miami-Dade County Water
 County.                                  Management Division, 701
                                          Northwest 1st Court, 5th
                                          Floor, Miami, FL 33136.
Village of Bal Harbour Village.........  Building Department, 655 96th
                                          Street, Bal Harbour Village,
                                          FL 33154.
Village of Biscayne Park...............  Village Hall, 600 Northeast
                                          114th Street, Biscayne Park,
                                          FL 33161.
Village of El Portal...................  Village Hall, 500 Northeast
                                          87th Street, El Portal, FL
                                          33138.
Village of Indian Creek Village........  Village Hall, 9080 Bay Drive,
                                          Indian Creek Village, FL
                                          33154.
Village of Key Biscayne................  Building Department, 88 West
                                          McIntyre Street, Key Biscayne,
                                          FL 33149.
Village of Miami Shores Village........  Village Hall--Planning and
                                          Zoning Department, 10050
                                          Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami
                                          Shores Village, FL 33138.
Village of Palmetto Bay................  Building Department, 9705 East
                                          Hibiscus Street, Palmetto Bay,
                                          FL 33157.
Village of Pinecrest...................  Building and Planning
                                          Department, 12645 Pinecrest
                                          Parkway, Pinecrest, FL 33156.
Village of Virginia Gardens............  Village Hall, 6498 Northwest
                                          38th Terrace, Virginia
                                          Gardens, FL 33166.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-20981 Filed 9-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="Transcript - Workshop on Implementation of Nucleic Acid Testin">
<META name="creation-date" content="30/07/2008 04:45:17 ">
<TITLE>Transcript - Workshop on Implementation of Nucleic Acid Testin</TITLE>

1
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICS EVALUATION AND RESEARCH
+ + + + +
WORKSHOP ON IMPLEMENTATION OF
NUCLEIC ACID TESTING
+ + + + +
TUESDAY
DECEMBER 14, 1999
The workshop took place in the Masur Auditorium,
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland at
8:00 a.m., Edward Tabor, M.D., Chair, presiding.
Present:
Edward Tabor, M.D., Chair
Michael Busch, M.D., Ph.D., Speaker
Michael Chudy, M.D., Speaker
Masaharu Nakajima, M.D., Ph.D., Speaker
John Saldanha, Ph.D., Speaker
Robin Biswas, M.D., Speaker
Andrew Dayton, M.D., Speaker
Andrew Conrad, Ph.D., Speaker
Don Baker, Ph.D., Speaker
Charles Heldebrant, Ph.D., Speaker
Alan Liss, Ph.D., Speaker
Brian Renoe, Ph.D., Speaker
Christina Giachetti, Ph.D., Speaker
Susan Stramer, Ph.D., Speaker
Sally Caglioti, MT(ASCP)SBB, Speaker
Richard Gammon, M.D., Speaker
Michael Strong, M.D., Speaker
Mary Elizabeth Jacobs, Ph.D., Speaker
Paul Mied, Ph.D., Speaker
Kay Gregory, MS, MT, (ASCP) SBB, Speaker
Chris Healey, Speaker
Mei-Ying Yu, Ph.D., Speaker
Thomas Lynch, Ph.D., Speaker
Aris Lazo, Ph.D., Speaker

2
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
ALSO PRESENT:
Thomas Weimer, Ph.D., Speaker
Gerold Zerlauth, Ph.D., Speaker
Andrew Conrad, Ph.D., Speaker
Sheryl McDonough, Ph.D., Speaker
James Gallarda, Ph.D., Speaker
Klaus-Heinrich Heerman, Ph.D., Speaker
Professor Jean-Pierre Allain, Ph.D., Speaker
Celso Bianco, M.D., Ph.D.
Roger Dodd, Ph.D., Speaker
Steve Kleinman, M.D., Speaker
Paul McCurdy, M.D., Speaker

3
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
I-N-D-E-X
Opening Remarks:  Goals and Benefits of NAT
Implementation, Edward Tabor, M.D. .......... 6
I.  Regulatory Perspectives and Issues:  Moderator:
Edward Tabor, M.D.
Estimates of Residual Risk in Infectious
Disease Transmission During the
Window Period, Michael Busch, M.D., Ph.D. .. 13
NAT Implementation:  Regulation in U.S.,
Paul Mied, Ph.D.  .......................... 40
NAT Implementation:  Regulation in Europe,
Michael Chudy, M.D. ........................ 50
NAT Implementation:  Regulation in Japan,
Masaharu Nakajima, M.D. .................... 58
Standardization and Quality Assurance of
NAT, John Saldanha, Ph.D. .................. 65
II.  Experience with NAT for Donor Screening (HCV,
HBV and HIV)
Moderators:  Andrew Dayton, M.D., and Robin
Biswas, M.D. ......................... 77
Plasma for Further Manufacturing
National Genetics Institute (NG), Andrew
Conrad, Ph.D. .............................. 77
Baxter Hyland Immuno, Don Baker, Ph.D. ..... 84
Alpha, Charles Heldebrant, Ph.D. ........... 87
Centeon, Alan Liss, Ph.D. .................. 93
Bayer/Roche, Brian Renoe, Ph.D. ............ 96
Blood Bank
Gen-Probe, Christina Giachetti, Ph.D. ..... 102
American Red Cross (ARC), Susan Stramer,
Ph.D. ............................... 109

4
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
America's Blood Centers (ABC), Sally
Caglioti, MT(ASP)SBB ................ 120
Roche/ABC, Michael Strong, M.D. ........... 128
Association of Independent Blood Centers
(AIBE), Richard Gammon, M.D. .............. 134
III.  Implementation Issues:  Trade Organization
Perspectives
Moderators:
Mary Elizabeth Jacobs, Ph.D.,
Paul Mied, Ph.D. .......................... 146
AIBC, Richard Gammon, M.D. ................ 147
AABB, Kay Gregory, M.S., MT(ASCP)SBB ...... 155
American Red Cross, Susan Stramer, M.D. ... 158
ABC, Celso Bianco, M.D. ................... 164
ABC, Sally Caglioti, MT(ASCP)SBB .......... 171
ABC, Michael Strong, M.D. ................. 176
ABRA, Chris Healey ........................ 178
Panel Discussion .......................... 182
IV.  NAT for Parvovirus B 19; Moderators:
Mei-Ying
Yu, Ph.D., Thomas Lynch, Ph.D.
Regulatory Aspects, Thomas Lynch, Ph.D. ... 200
Experience with NAT:  Parvovirus B19
Vitex, Aris Lazo, Ph.D. ................... 205
Centeon, Thomas Weimer, Ph.D. ............. 211
Baxter Hyland Immuno, Gerold Zerlauth,
Ph.D. ..................................... 215
NGI, Andrew Conrad, Ph.D. ................. 219
Discussion ................................ 222
V.  Evolution of Single Unit Testing

5
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
Moderator:  Edward Tabor, M.D.
Gen-Probe, Sheryl McDonough, Ph.D. ......... 234
Roche, James Gallarda, Ph.D. .............. 244
University of Gottingen, Germany,
Klause-Heinrich Heerman, Ph.D. ............ 250
University of Cambridge, U.K., Professor
Jean-Pierre Allain, M.D. .................. 256
Discussion
Moderator:  Edward Tabor, M.D.
Discussants:
Celso Bianco, M.D., Michael
Busch, M.D., Ph.D., Michael Chudy, Ph.D.,
Roger Dodd, Ph.D., Jay Epstein, M.D.,
Steven Kleinman, M.D., Paul McCurdy, M.D.,
Masaharu, Nakajima, M.D., John Saldanha,
Ph.D., Susan Stramer, Ph.D. ............... 263
Adjournment ..................................... 281

6
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
(8:04 a.m.)
DR. TABOR:  Welcome to the Workshop on
Implementation of Nucleic Acid Testing.  I'm Edward
Tabor, Associate Director for Medical Affairs in the
Office of Blood.  Unfortunately, Dr. Indira Hewlett, who
was going to be playing a major part in this workshop,
is unable to be here because of illness.  She's just
returned from a trip to the Far East and I certainly
hope she has a domestic, rather than a foreign illness.
Anyway, we wish her well.
We are in the midst of a scientific
revolution in blood and plasma safety, truly a
revolution.  This revolution is associated with the
implementation of nucleic acid amplification testing,
known by its abbreviation NAT to detect viruses and
other pathogens in blood.  It is a revolution of great
significance because it moves the detection of potential
viral and other contaminants of blood for transfusion
into the realm of molecular biology and because, in the
long run, it may permit us to eliminate some organisms
for which efficient immunologic assays have not yet been
developed.  This technology also may permit the
simultaneous detection of numerous, diverse infectious

7
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
agents in one highly sensitive assay system.
One of the most common forms of NAT, the
polymerase chain reaction test was invented in the early
1980s and it came into relatively wide use in research
laboratories for the detection of viral nucleic acids by
1988.  A review of this technology at an FDA-sponsored
workshop held in September 1994 concluded that practical
application of it, for making blood and plasma
derivatives safer, was not possible at that time.  The
test was expensive and time- consuming to run.  It
lacked automation and high throughput.  Contamination of
fresh samples by amplified gene sequences, known as
amplicons, from previous test runs was a difficult
problem.
The very concept of trying to test 25
million units of blood and plasma each year and getting
the results back to the right place in time to interdict
the use of infectious products was a daunting challenge.
However, over the next several years, additional
developments reduced the importance of these problems.
Commercial manufacturing of
semi-automated and automated test kits in large
quantities reduced the time it took to run the tests.
Special pipette tips, known as positive displacement

8
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
pipette tips, prevented carryover of contaminants in
aerosol droplets adhering to the pipette beneath the
disposable tips.  The use of DUTP in place to TTP as a
nucleotide in the amplification process in NAT screening
for blood, permitted the inclusion of an enzyme urasyl
n-glycosylase in each new sample mixture to destroy
contaminating amplicons which, unlike native DNA, would
contain hydrolyzable DUTP.
However, the most important innovation was
a concept, rather than a gadget.  Although screening
tests for viral markers on pooled samples had been
conducted previously in some countries outside the U.S.,
it was FDA's decision in 1996 to permit such screening
on minipools under IND applications that accelerated the
pace of the development and application of this
technology.  Enough was known about the assays that were
proposed that there was general agreement that the blood
and plasma supply would be safer as a result of this
policy.
The philosopher Wittgenstein once said,
"The aspects of things that are most important for us
are hidden because of their simplicity."  This applies
to the remarkable, but simple innovation of combining
minipool testing and matrix analysis to identify a

9
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
contaminated unit.  The use of the minipool reduced the
cost of the testing by necessitating fewer tests than
would be needed if individual units were tested.  The
use of matrix analysis permitted rapid donor
identification in order to remove the infected unit
without discarding the entire minipool.  Donor
identification also permitted deferral of the donor from
possible future donations and notification enabled the
donor to seek early medical attention and to take
precautions to prevent spread of infection to close
contacts.
Subsequently, modifications in NAT methods
by some manufacturers increased the sensitivity of the
testing.  Today, most tests that are currently under
investigation can detect as few as 20 to 50 viral copies
per mL with the high rate of reproducibility.
The ability of testing facilities to get the
results back to the collecting facilities within a few
days with the positive unit correctly identified so that
the positive unit or its components would not be
transfused into patients is being made possible by
logistic innovations and computer technology.  This
aspect of NAT related technology is still under
development, particularly with regard to platelets

10
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
because of their shelf life of only five days.
A major change in public perception of
blood safety also contributed to this revolution.  In
the late 1970s, during the first five years after the
introduction of sensitive tests for hepatitis B surface
antigen, the elimination of most of the cases of post-
transfusion hepatitis B was considered such a marvelous
improvement in blood safety that the remaining rare
cases were considered minimal.  In fact, at that time
there was no hope felt for eliminating, in the
foreseeable future, what we now call window period cases
and perhaps other cases in which the virus, for some
reason, is present at levels below the limits of
detection.
Of course, it was soon recognized that an
even greater remaining problem was non-A, non-B
hepatitis, now known to have been mostly due to
hepatitis C virus and that problem was indeed vigorously
attacked in laboratories around the world.  But the
epidemic of human immunodeficiency virus type 1
infection brought a new level of concern to the public
and particularly to users of plasma derivatives.  The
public and their representatives in Congress began to
expect a zero-risk goal for blood safety.  This resulted

11
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
in efforts in research and in regulatory policy to
eliminate even those few units containing residual virus
that could be transmitted by blood or plasma infusion.
During the past two years the FDA has
permitted the interim application of NAT testing of
minipools under INDs.  This has permitted the public to
benefit from that screening of blood and plasma for HCV
and HIV, while ensuring that proper studies are done to
validate the assays and to validate the logistics of
interdicting potentially infectious units and
identifying and notifying infected donors.
By the beginning of December 1999 -- this
month -- it was expected that approximately 99 percent
of plasma and 80 percent of blood collected in the
United States for transfusion or for further manufacture
into plasma derivatives was being tested by NAT to
detect HCV and HIV.  The prevalence of testing was
expected to reach 99 percent for both blood and plasma
by the end of this month, the end of December 1999.
Increasingly, the results are being made
available soon enough to identify infected units before
the components are infused into a patient.  Also, some
companies have begun to develop mechanisms to permit
individual unit testing under INDs and probably we will

12
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
be hearing more about this important advance today.
Well, what does NAT offer us in the future?
The likelihood of individual unit testing within the
next few years should eliminate nearly all transmission
of HCV and HIV by blood transfusion.  The risk of these
infections from plasma derivatives is already zero when
the inactivation and removal steps in manufacturing are
carried out correctly.  But there are other potential
future benefits as well.  One possible benefit is the
possibility of the near elimination of the transmission
of hepatitis B virus by blood transfusion when single
unit HBV NAT is introduced.  Another possible benefit,
the elimination of the transmission of viruses that are
not affected by currently available inactivation steps
in the manufacture of plasma derivatives, viruses such
as human Parvovirus B-19 and hepatitis A virus.
Another possible benefit, the simultaneous
screening for multiple blood-borne pathogens in one
sensitive assay.  Another possible benefit, the
elimination of bacterial infections as a complication of
transfusion, particularly as a complication of the
transfusion of platelets.  Transfusion-transmitted
bacterial infections are now a cause of 10 to 15 percent
of transfusion-related fatalities.  The use of NAT with

13
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
micro-array technology could permit rapid screening for
a large number of bacterial species at one time.
Another possible benefit, the identification of new
agents, such as the causative agent of what we know as
non-A to E hepatitis and their eventual elimination as
causes of transfusion- transmitted disease.
I want to thank in advance all of the
speakers who will be participating in today's workshop
and also all of you who have come a long distance to
attend the workshop.  I know that the presentations that
we will hear today will be a valuable resource for those
working with this rapidly advancing technology.
The first session is titled Regulatory
Perspectives and Issues and I'd like to introduce the
first speaker, Dr. Michael Busch, who is well known to
all of you, who will be speaking on Estimates of
Residual Risk in Infectious Disease Transmission During
the Window Period.
Dr. Busch?
DR. BUSCH:  Thank you, Ed.  I was asked to
briefly review the current risk estimates and then focus
on window period characteristics to estimate the yield
of both minipool and single donation NAT screening.  And
then toward the end I'll present a little bit of data

14
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
with respect to yield, some recent work on cost-
effectiveness, and also a little bit of discussion
around some future studies that are in the planning
stages to address some of the still- unresolved
questions.
Just to begin, it's important to recognize
how far we've come.  This slide is from some work with
Jim AuBuchon, just summarizing the risk of HIV,
hepatitis B and hepatitis C over the last several
decades and each of these points is actually an
empirically derived or in the very recent data, modeled
estimates of risk, based mostly on National Institutes
of Health-funded studies.  And what you can see is
really profound reductions in risk.  This is a
logarithmic scale, from risk estimates in the one
percent or so range for HIV and hepatitis C, down to
risk estimates in the range of less than 1 in 100,000
for the hepatitis viruses and about one in a half a
million for HIV and HTLV.
In the last few years, our group in the
REDS study group, and particularly Steven Kleinman and
myself, have endeavored to try to understand the sources
of residual risk and we focused on estimates that relate

15
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
to the window period based on modeling, the incidence
rate times the duration of the window period to estimate
risk or project yield of new tests, understanding of
potential contribution of viral variance that may be
immunologically divergent and not tested by the -- not
detected accurately by the tests that are typically
based on a single strain prototype, concern over
immunosilent infections or carriers who fail to form
antibody and testing errors.  A fair bit of work has
gone on both in this country and overseas to really
understand the prevalence of these various types of
risk.  From that analysis we've derived estimates for
each of the major agents, for each of these different
sources of risk as well as the sum total for all of
these sources of risk.  And fortunately, in this
country, contributions from viral variants is extremely
small, that these unusual variants are very rare and the
tests, I think, the companies, with a lot of FDA
encouragement, have been very proactive to maintain a
global surveillance for new variants and modify and
improve the tests to be able to detect these.  So
certainly in the States, viral variants contribute very
little.  Unusual seroconverters or so-called
immunosilent carrier is very rare.  We'll come back to

16
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
HCV a little bit later.  There has been controversy and
continues to be some data to suggest that there may be
more frequent HCV infected persons who fail to
seroconvert, but certainly it's, I think, been shown to
be fairly rare.  And in tests there, I think we'll hear
a little bit from the Red Cross later about observing
some test error with NAT testing that corroborates an
estimate that's impressed, that estimates that around 1
in 200 to 300 test performed in blood banks routinely
may be erroneously run for various reasons, but the
contribution of test error to risk is very small because
an error has to occur on a seropositive unit in order


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Oral Testimony presented at CO public hearing at Potomac Yard, Arlington, VA on 2/28/11