[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44505-44509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21096]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 990730207-9207-01; I.D. 072899B]
RIN 0648-ZA68
New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for restoration ideas for New Bedford Harbor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On behalf of the New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council (Council),
NMFS, serving as the Administrative Trustee, announces this request for
ideas for projects that will restore natural resources that were
injured by the release of hazardous substances, including
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in the New Bedford Harbor
environment. The Council will evaluate ideas in three major areas: the
restoration criteria established by the Council as described in section
V.A.2 of this document, the legal requirements for eligibility, and the
technical feasibility. The Council will also seek public comment on the
ideas received. After receiving public comments, technical, public and
other recommendations will be provided to the Council for its
consideration in deciding which ideas, if any, be adapted into measures
to be implemented.
DATES: The Council will accept project ideas through September 7, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The Council will accept project ideas at the following
location: New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council, c/o National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn: Jack
Terrill, or New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council, 37 N. Second Street,
New Bedford, MA 02740. Comments on the collection-of-information-
requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act can be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NOAA Desk
Officer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Terrill, Coordinator, 978-281-
9136, or [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
New Bedford Harbor is located in Southeastern Massachusetts at the
mouth of the Acushnet River on Buzzards Bay. The communities of
Acushnet, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, and New Bedford are adjacent to the
harbor. The harbor and river are contaminated with high levels of
hazardous materials, including PCBs, and as a consequence are on the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund National
Priorities List. This site is also listed by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection as a priority Tier 1 disposal
site. The contamination resulted both directly from discharges into the
Acushnet River estuary and Buzzards Bay and indirectly via the
municipal wastewater treatment system into the same bodies of water.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA or ``Superfund,'' 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.)
provides a mechanism for addressing the Nation's hazardous waste sites,
allowing states and the Federal Government to sue polluters for the
clean-up and restoration of designated sites. CERCLA provides for the
designation of ``natural resource trustees:'' Federal, state, or tribal
authorities who represent the public interest in natural resources.
Natural resource trustees may seek monetary damages (i.e.,
compensation) from polluters for injury, destruction, or loss of
natural resources resulting from releases of specified hazardous
substances. These damages, which are distinct from clean-up costs, must
be used by the trustees to ``restore, replace, or acquire the
equivalent of'' (CERCLA) the natural resources that have been injured,
after the trustees have approved a restoration plan.
The parties responsible for the New Bedford Harbor discharges were
electronics manufacturers who were major users of PCBs from the time
their operations commenced in the late 1940s until 1977, when EPA
banned the use and manufacture of PCBs. PCBs are human carcinogens that
can be introduced to humans through eating contaminated fish and
shellfish. PCBs also have adverse effects on such
[[Page 44506]]
natural resources as shellfish, birds, and higher mammals.
Executive Order 12580 and the National Contingency Plan, which is
the implementing regulation for CERCLA, designate the Secretaries of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Interior to be Federal
trustees for natural resources. Federal trustees are designated because
of their statutory responsibilities for protection and/or management of
natural resources or management of federally owned land. In addition,
the governor of each state is required to designate a state trustee.
Trustee responsibilities include assessing damages resulting from
the release of hazardous substances, pursuing recovery of both damages
and costs from the responsible party or parties, and using recovered
funds to restore, replace or acquire the equivalent of natural
resources that were injured by the release. For the New Bedford Harbor
Superfund Site, there are three natural resource trustees on the
Council: Department of Commerce (DOC), the Department of the Interior,
and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Secretary of Commerce has
delegated DOC trustee responsibility to NOAA; within NOAA, NMFS has
responsibility for natural resource restoration. The Secretary of the
Interior has delegated trustee responsibility to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Governor of Massachusetts has delegated trustee
responsibility to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs.
In 1983, the Federal and state trustees filed complaints against
the electronic manufacturers in Federal District Court in Boston
alleging causes of action under CERCLA for injuries to natural
resources under their trusteeship that had resulted from releases of
hazardous substances, including PCBs. The complaints were resolved as
of 1992 through settlement agreements with the electronic manufacturers
who paid $109 million for (1) cleanup of the harbor, (2) restoration of
injured natural resources, and (3) reimbursement of funds already
expended. The Council was created as a result of the settlements.
CERCLA defines natural resources to include land, fish, wildlife,
biota, air, water, groundwater, drinking water supplies or other
resources under the control or management of the Federal or state
government. Natural resources within the New Bedford Harbor environment
showing documented injury or having a high probability of injury
include fish, shellfish, other marine organisms, birds, marine sediment
and the water column. The fish species include winter flounder, tautog,
scup, mackerel, silverside, mummichog, and American eels and herring.
Shellfish injured by the release of PCBs include mussels, clams,
quahogs, oysters, various species of crabs and lobster. PCB
contamination also affected other organisms such as amphipods, diatoms
and copepods that are part of the food chain and are a means for
further transmission of PCBs.
The Council issued an initial ``Request for Restoration Ideas'' in
October 1995 (60 FR 52164, October 5, 1995)(the first round). Fifty-six
ideas were received from the local communities, members of the public,
academia, and state and Federal agencies. The ideas were the basis for
the alternatives listed in the Council's ``Restoration Plan for the New
Bedford Harbor Environment'' (Restoration Plan) that was developed to
guide the Council's restoration efforts. An environmental impact
statement was prepared in conjunction with the Restoration Plan to
fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. A record
of decision was issued on September 22, 1998, for both the Restoration
Plan and the environmental impact statement. The issuance of the record
of decision allowed the implementation of 11 preferred restoration
projects analyzed in the Restoration Plan.
The Restoration Plan also identifies an ``event based'' process
that allows the Council to proceed with additional restoration
activities as more information on EPA's remediation becomes available
or as portions of the harbor remediation are completed. Because EPA has
issued the ``Record of Decision for the Upper and Lower Harbor Operable
Unit'' (September 25, 1998), which describes the methods and actions
EPA will undertake to clean up the site, the Council now believes it is
appropriate to issue another request for restoration ideas (the second
round).
II. Guidance For Development of Natural Resource Project Proposals
Following the conclusion of the first round of funding for
restoration projects, members of the public requested further
information regarding potential project proposals to be submitted to
the Council for consideration in the second round, particularly
potential water quality projects such as sewer and septic related
construction projects. At its May 7, 1999 meeting, the Council provided
the following legal guidelines to be considered during development of
restoration project proposals to be submitted to the Council for
funding from the New Bedford Harbor Natural Resource Damages
Restoration Trust Fund. In addition to these legal guidelines, the
Council must also consider restoration requirements (see V.A.2 of this
document). Please understand that this summary cannot provide a
complete explanation of everything that the Council may consider in
evaluating proposed projects and that the following summary does not
constitute an official rule, regulation, or law.
Further, it is important to note that a project's consistency with
these legal guidelines does not guarantee that it will be funded, but
merely establishes that the Council will/may consider the project for
possible funding. Conversely, rejection of a proposed project based
upon the legal guidelines means that the Council will not use natural
resource damage settlement funds for that project, even though the
proposed project may yield a restoration benefit to an injured natural
resource.
(1) The Council may fund a restoration project only if the primary
purpose of the project is to, in a manner consistent with the
Restoration Plan, restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of a
natural resource that was injured by the release of PCBs into the New
Bedford Harbor environment.
The primary purpose of a project must be the restoration of an
injured natural resource or the services that the resource provided to
a condition comparable to that which would have existed in the absence
of the release of PCBs into the harbor environment.1 The
Council will not select a proposed project for funding if the
restoration benefit to the injured natural resource or to its related
services is only incidental to the objective of the project. For
example, although a proposed project may provide an incidental
restoration benefit to an injured resource, the Council will not fund
it if its cost is disproportionate to or exceeds the restoration
benefit or if its primary purpose appears to be to alleviate financial
hardship for one or more private individuals. The Council will consider
projects that ameliorate conditions that may limit the effectiveness of
any restoration action (for example, the removal of residual sources of
contamination) or would accelerate an injured resource's return to its
``baseline condition.''2 However, the Council may give lower
priority to
[[Page 44507]]
projects that propose to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of
injured natural resources by addressing such limiting conditions
instead of providing an affirmative restoration benefit to the
resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 107(f)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607.
\2\ ``Baseline'' means the condition that would have existed in
the area where the natural resources have been affected by the
release of hazardous substances had the release not occurred. 43 CFR
11.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The Council has determined that it will not fund a restoration
project if there is an independent, prior obligation to perform the
project pursuant to statute, regulation, ordinance, consent decree,
judgement, court order, permit condition or contract or if otherwise
required by Federal, state, or local law.
Please note that this summary cannot cover all possible laws that
may apply to a restoration proposal.3 Specifically, in
deciding whether a proposed project regarding water quality is
``otherwise required'', the Council will consider: (1) The legal
requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act and the analogous
provisions of Massachusetts law; (2) the legal requirements of Title 5,
which consists of the Massachusetts regulations governing on-site
sewage treatment and disposal, codified at 310 CMR 15.00; and (3)
whether the project is otherwise required by Federal, state, or local
law, consent decree, judgement, court order, permit condition or
contract, or could be required by enforcement of such law, consent
decree, judgement, court order, permit condition or contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Council has limited discussion in this section to the
Clean Water Act and to Massachusetts Title 5, as interested parties
primarily and specifically requested information concerning the
effect of those laws on water quality related project ideas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of whether a governmental agency has elected to exercise
its discretion to enforce a provision of law, if a governmental agency
has the authority to order certain work (for example, EPA or the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has the
authority to request a municipality to upgrade a combined sewer
overflow or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) due to an improper
point source discharge under the Clean Water Act, or DEP or a local
board of health has the authority to order a homeowner to address a
failed system under Title 5), then the Council will consider the
project to be ``otherwise required'' and not appropriate to be
considered for funding. Further, even though a project may not be
currently required by an independent prior obligation, the Council will
not fund it if there is an established deadline after which such an
obligation will exist.
For proposed projects that involve connecting a facility (currently
serviced by a Title 5-regulated on-site sewage treatment and disposal
system) to a municipal or private sanitary sewer, the project proponent
upon request, must provide the Council with adequate documentation that
(1) the facility is not the subject of an order or agreement to upgrade
its system or connect the system to a sanitary sewer or shared system;
(2) no inspection of the system is required pursuant to 310 CMR 15.301
or, if an inspection is required, a currently valid certificate of
compliance has been issued for the system by the approving authority;
and (3) the system does not fail to protect ``public health and safety
and the environment'' pursuant to 310 CMR 15.303 and 304.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For purposes of this section, ``facility'' has the meaning
as defined by Title 5, 310 CMR 15.002 not as defined by CERCLA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For proposed projects covered under the Clean Water Act and
involving the treatment or elimination of point source discharges of
pollutants to surface waters, including, for example, sewage,
industrial wastewater, and/or storm water, the project proponent must
demonstrate to the Council upon request and with adequate
documentation, that the proposed project goes beyond what is required
by applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits,
enforcement orders and consent decrees. In the case of a discharge for
which no permit has been issued, the project proponent must
demonstrate, upon request, that the project would go beyond the
requirements that would apply to the discharge pursuant to the Clean
Water Act, its implementing regulations, and state water quality
standards, as well as to any enforcement action which has been
initiated. The question of whether a proposed project would result in
pollution control beyond Clean Water Act requirements is complex and
must be answered on a case-by-case basis.
If, during its review of a proposed project pursuant to this
requirement, the Council determines that an ``otherwise required''
issue may exist, the Council will seek further clarification and
information from the proponent and/or other governmental entities
before making a final determination.
(3) In determining whether a proposed restoration project will be
funded, the Council will consider whether the project fits, in terms of
the project's costs, with the Council's plan to retain sufficient funds
to accomplish meaningful and necessary restoration work after EPA's
cleanup is finished.
The Council has not established a definite cap on funding for the
second round; however, the Council has decided that it will not expend
an amount of funds whose spending would impair its ability to
accomplish meaningful restoration following the completion of EPA's
remediation. In recognition of this limitation, the Council plans to
select a suite of projects that will accomplish restoration priorities
and whose total cost is consistent with the Restoration Plan. Project
proponents should scale proposals accordingly.
(4) The Council will not fund a restoration project that will be
undone or negatively impacted by EPA's future remediation work or that
will interfere with any ongoing remediation related work.
Even if the Council's analysis of a proposed project indicates that
it will yield a cost-effective restoration benefit to an injured
resource, the Council will not fund the project in this round if it
will be undone or negatively impacted by EPA's future remediation work.
The Council intends to closely coordinate its actions with those of EPA
during the development of the remediation plans and to inform the
public as to EPA's cleanup schedule so that restoration proposals may
be developed accordingly.
Although a proponent may have a general sense of the New Bedford
Harbor environment and the injured natural resources sufficient for an
initial identification of projects, precise legal meanings of certain
terms are provided in the Restoration Plan. Please consult the
Restoration Plan prior to submitting a project proposal (for example,
see Figure 1.1 in chapter 1 of the Restoration Plan for the meaning of
the ``affected'' New Bedford Harbor environment, and chapter 2.1 for
definitions of certain terms including ``injury'' and ``natural
resources'').
If a municipality proposes a project, the Council suggests that the
proposal be reviewed by the municipality's legal counsel prior to
submission. In addition, please remember that information submitted to
the Council by all parties is included in a public record and is
subject to disclosure pursuant to the Federal Freedom of Information
Act and the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Please note that, prior
to selection of any project for funding, all proposals will be subject
to public review and comment as part of an open public comment process.
III. Restoration Priorities
The Council has identified the following list of priorities for
restoration of injured natural resources:
1. Marshes and/or wetlands,
2. Recreation areas,
[[Page 44508]]
3. Water column,
4. Habitats,
5. Living resources, and
6. Endangered species.
Project ideas should address these priorities but respondents are
not limited to these areas alone. New priorities can be identified, if
appropriate, and incorporated into the restoration planning process
provided that they meet legal requirements, technical feasibility, and
selection criteria.
IV. How to Submit Ideas
This is not a formal solicitation for contract or grant proposals.
Instead this is a request for ideas that could eventually lead to
contracts or grants. Depending on the activity involved in a project
and the project's proponent, the funding award could be a grant, a
contract, or, if appropriate, work performed by Federal or state
agencies. Please note that the type of submission expected under this
solicitation for restoration ideas is significantly different from that
for Federal assistance programs.
Respondents are reminded that, once an idea has been submitted, the
idea will be made available to the public. Even if the idea is chosen
and a solicitation is conducted for accomplishing that idea, there is
still no guarantee that the proponent of the idea will be chosen to
perform that work. It is possible that an idea may be implemented,
after public review (see IV.B.1), through a sole source contract or
grant if the idea meets the appropriate criteria for such an award.
Because proposals will be subject to public review, respondents who are
concerned about revealing proprietary interests or methods should
present only enough information to provide the Council with an
understanding of the idea.
A. Eligible Submissions
All individuals are eligible to submit ideas, and all submissions
are welcomed and encouraged. Respondents are asked to evaluate their
idea(s) against criteria developed by the Council in the Restoration
Plan (see V.A.2).
Assistance from Council staff is available by telephone or through
meetings. Assistance will be limited to such issues as the Council's
goals, restoration priorities, selection criteria, application
procedures, and responding to questions regarding completion of
application forms. Assistance will not be provided for conceptualizing,
developing, or structuring proposals. Information can be obtained at
the offices of the Council (see ADDRESSES).
B. Duration and Terms of Funding
Direct awards of funding will not occur under this solicitation for
restoration ideas. Rather, this solicitation for restoration ideas will
result in prioritization of proposed ideas by the Council considering
public review and comment. The Council will then determine the most
appropriate means of implementing approved project ideas that may or
may not require further solicitation.
The Council has a fixed amount of money to implement restoration
projects. The cost of the project constitutes an important
consideration in determining which project ideas are to be implemented.
Estimated cost information allows the Council to develop a spending
plan for future years and allows both the public to understand and the
Council to determine how many project ideas can actually be funded. In
describing the project idea, respondents should consider whether
funding would be needed for a single or multiyear basis. This
information will in no way affect consideration of the merits of the
proposal but instead will assist the Council in its planning.
Since this announcement is only a request for restoration ideas,
publication of this request does not obligate the Council to award any
specific grant or contract or to obligate any part or the entire amount
of funds available.
C. Cost sharing
One way of extending the fixed amount of money the Council has to
work with is through cost sharing (often referred to as providing
``matching funds''). It is not required that project ideas contain cost
sharing. However, the Council does encourage respondents to think about
cost sharing and, if it is appropriate for a project idea, to discuss
within the idea the degree to which cost sharing may be possible. If
cost sharing is proposed, the respondent is asked to account for both
the Council and non-Council amounts. This information will allow the
Council to better plan future expenditures.
D. Format
The forms described below are available from the Council's offices
(see ADDRESSES) or through the internet at http://www.darp.noaa.gov/
neregion/newbed.htm.
1. Project idea summary: An applicant must complete ``Request for
Restoration Ideas'', Project Summary form, for each project. This form
is required in addition to the project narrative described below:
2. Project idea budget: Since this is a solicitation of ideas and
not a competitive bidding process for work to be performed, a project
budget is not required. However, the Council requests that a cost
estimate be provided in order to better plan for a proposed allocation
of available funds. In determining the estimate for total project cost,
the respondent should take into account direct costs, indirect costs,
and any cost sharing. Fees or profits should not be included in the
estimated budget.
The total costs of the project idea include all costs incurred in
accomplishing its objectives during the life of the project.
3. Project idea narrative description: The project idea should be
completely and accurately described, as follows:
a. Project idea goals and objectives: State what the proposed
project idea is expected to accomplish.
b. Project idea statement of work: Describe the work to be
performed that will achieve the Council goals, priorities, and
criteria. Include the work, activities, or procedures to be undertaken
and the types of individuals expected to perform such work.
c. Federal, state, and local government activities: List any
Federal, state, or local government programs or activities that this
project idea would affect, if known, including activities under
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Plans and those requiring
consultation with the Federal Government under the Endangered Species
Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Describe the relationship
between the project idea and these plans or activities.
d. Project idea evaluation criteria: Describe how the project idea
would address the criteria contained in V.A.2.
V. Evaluation Criteria and Selection Procedures
A. Evaluation of Restoration Project Ideas
1. Consultation with interested parties: The Council will evaluate
ideas in consultation with Federal trust agencies, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts trust agencies, other Federal and state agencies, the
Council's advisors, and others outside the Federal and state trust
agencies who have knowledge in the subject matter of the project ideas
or who would be affected by the project ideas.
2. Technical evaluation criteria: The Council will solicit
technical evaluations of each project idea from appropriate private and
public sector
[[Page 44509]]
experts. Point scores will be given to project ideas up to the maximum
value shown below, based on the following evaluation criteria:
(a) Project ideas must restore the injured natural resources and
associated activities of the area. The idea will be evaluated on
whether it restores, replaces, or acquires the equivalent of natural
resources that were injured as a result of the release of hazardous
materials, including PCBs, in the New Bedford Harbor environment. (25
points)
(b) Priority will be given to project ideas within the New Bedford
Harbor environment, however, project ideas within the affected marine
ecosystem that have a direct, positive impact on the harbor environment
will be considered. Project ideas that are outside the New Bedford
Harbor environment will be considered if they restore injured natural
resources within the New Bedford Harbor environment. (15 points)
(c) Priority will be given to project ideas that give the largest
ecological and economic benefit to the greatest area or greatest number
of people affected by the injury. The Council is seeking project ideas
that will provide the greatest good. A project idea will be evaluated
on the basis of whether it provides positive benefits to a more
comprehensive area or population. Project ideas that benefit a
particular individual rather than a group of individuals would be
scored lower under this criterion. (15 points)
(d) Ecological or economic effects of the project ideas should be
identifiable and measurable so that changes to the New Bedford Harbor
environment can be documented. The idea will be evaluated on whether it
has discrete quantifiable results so that a determination can be made
on its success or failure. (10 points)
(e) Preferred project ideas are those that employ proven
technologies that have high probabilities of success. In evaluating a
project idea, the reviewers will determine the likelihood of success
based on the method being proposed. To assist in this evaluation, the
respondent should provide information on whether the technique has been
used before and whether it has been successful. (10 points)
(f) Project ideas should be cost effective. The justification and
allocation of a project's budget in terms of the work to be performed
will be evaluated. Project ideas which would result in high
implementation costs will be taken into account. (10 points)
(g) Project ideas should enhance the aesthetic surroundings of the
harbor environment to the greatest extent possible, while acknowledging
the ongoing industrial uses of the harbor. The extent that a project
idea recognizes the multiple number of uses and the project idea's
impacts on those uses will be evaluated as well as the project idea's
ability to enhance the overall beauty of the harbor environment. (5
points)
(h) Project ideas should ultimately enhance the public's ability to
use, enjoy, or benefit from the harbor environment. Besides a project
idea's success at restoring natural resources, it will be evaluated on
the basis of collateral gains in the public's ability to utilize the
harbor environment. (5 points)
(i) Project ideas should provide an opportunity for community
involvement that should be allowed to continue even after the Council's
actions have ended. Project ideas will be evaluated on whether the
public can be involved in various facets after the Council has
completed its funding and the project is completed. (5 points)
3. Project idea ranking: Utilizing the numerical scores resulting
from the technical evaluation described at V.A.2., project ideas will
be ranked in order of the highest to the lowest score. Project ideas
scoring the highest will be considered as ``preliminary preferred''
alternatives, with the other ideas as alternatives. The ranking is used
only to provide guidance to the Trustees, but is not controlling.
Project ideas that fail to meet criterion (a) may be excluded from
further consideration though respondents may be provided other
opportunities through later Council solicitations.
B. Selection Procedures and Project Funding
After project ideas have been evaluated and ranked, the review team
will develop recommendations for preferred projects. These
recommendations will be submitted to the Council which will review the
recommendations, accept or modify the recommendations, and make a
preliminary determination on the approximate number of project ideas it
expects to undertake.
1. Public review: Once a preliminary determination is made on the
preferred project ideas and on the number of project ideas to be
funded, the Council will initiate a 30-day public comment period and
hold a public hearing to receive comment on the Council's
recommendations.
2. Trustee Council determination: At the conclusion of the 30-day
comment period, the Council will consider the comments from the public
and its advisors before making its final decisions on funding. Factors
the Trustees may consider include, but are not limited to, the total
cost of the highest ranked projects, the cost of individual projects,
the amount available to be spent, and the potential impact of clean up
activities on the project.
3. Project solicitation: Upon the Council's final decisions, the
Council may solicit restoration projects for the selected ideas. If
necessary, the solicitation will be a formal request following the
appropriate contract or grant procedures. The projects ultimately
selected could be awarded to private entities, commercial firms,
educational institutions, or local, state, or Federal agencies.
Classification
This notice contains a collection-of-information requirement
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of this
information has been approved by the OMB under OMB control number 0648-
0302. No person is required to respond to the collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public reporting burden for this collection is 1 hour per
response. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden to Jack Terrill and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and 9601 et seq.
Dated: August 9, 1999.
Gary C. Matlock,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Services.
[FR Doc. 99-21096 Filed 8-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
