New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council

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