Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices 29089

which impounds 250 acre-feet of water,

a 26,000-foot-long, 11-foot-diameter

flowline, two surge tanks, two 90-inchdiameter steel penstocks, and a

powerhouse with a total installed

capacity of 33,000 kW.

The Cove Development consists of a

concrete dam which impounds 65 acrefeet of water, a 5,700-foot-long wooden

flume, a 550-foot-long diameter steel

penstock and a powerhouse with an

installed capacity of 7,500 kW.

k. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.7,

information on the project is available

at: PacifiCorp, 920 SW 6th Avenue,

Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 464–

5343.

l. FERC contact: Hector M. Perez (202)

219–2843.

m. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.9(b)(1) each

application for a new license and any

competing license applications must be

filed with the Commission at least 24

months prior to the expiration of the

existing license. All applications for

license for this project must be filed by

October 1, 1999.

Standard Paragraphs

B. Comments, Protests, or Motions to

Intervene—Anyone may submit

comments, a protest, or a motion to

intervene in accordance with the

requirements of Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214.

In determining the appropriate action to

take, the Commission will consider all

protests or other comments filed, but

only those who file a motion to

intervene in accordance with the

Commission’s Rules may become a

party to the proceeding. Any comments,

protests, or motions to intervene must

be received on or before the specified

comment date for the particular

application.

C1. Filing and Service of Responsive

Documents—Any filings must bear in

all capital letters the title

‘‘COMMENTS’’,

‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS

AND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR

‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, as

applicable, and the Project Number of

the particular application to which the

filing refers. Any of the above-named

documents must be filed by providing

the original and the number of copies

provided by the Commission’s

regulations to: The Secretary, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426. A copy of any motion to

intervene must also be served upon each

representative of the Applicant

specified in the particular application.

C2. Filing and Service of Responsive

Documents—Any filings must bear in

all capital letters the title

‘‘COMMENTS,’’

‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS

AND CONDITIONS,’’ ‘‘NOTICE OF

INTENT TO FILE COMPETING

APPLICATION,’’ ‘‘COMPETING

APPLICATION,’’ ‘‘PROTEST,’’ or

‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE,’’ as

applicable, and the Project Number of

the particular application to which the

filing refers. Any of these documents

must be filed by providing the original

and the number of copies provided by

the Commission’s regulations to: The

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426. A copy of a

notice of intent, competing application,

or motion to intervene must also be

served upon each representative of the

Applicant specified in the particular

application.

D2. Agency Comments—Federal,

state, and local agencies are invited to

file comments on the described

application. A copy of the application

may be obtained by agencies directly

from the Applicant. If an agency does

not file comments within the time

specified for filing comments, it will be

presumed to have no comments. One

copy of an agency’s comments must also

be sent to the Applicant’s

representatives.

Dated: May 29, 1996.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14394 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket No. CP96–519–000, et al.]

NorAm Gas Transmission Company, et

al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings

May 31, 1996.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. NorAm Gas Transmission Company

[Docket No. CP96–519–000]

Take notice that on May 13, 1996, as

supplemented on May 28, 1996, NorAm

Gas Transmission Company (NGT),

1600 Smith Street, Houston, Texas

77002, filed in Docket No. CP96–519–

000, a request pursuant to Sections

157.205, 157.211 and 157.216 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 18

CFR 157.211, and 157.216) for

authorization under its blanket

certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82–

384–000 and CP82–384–001, pursuant

to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, to

abandon certain facilities in Arkansas

and Louisiana and to operate their

existing replacement facilities as

jurisdictional facilities to provide

transportation services under Subpart G

of Part 284 of the Commission’s

regulations, all as more fully set forth in

the request which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

NGT requests authority, pursuant to

18 CFR 157.216, to abandon one 2-inch

tap and 2-inch U-Shape meter station

located on NGT’s N Line in Caddo

Parish, Louisiana. NGT relates that these

facilities were originally installed in

1952, and certificated in Docket No. G–

252, to serve ARKLA, a distribution

division of NorAM Energy Corp.

(ARKLA). Additionally, NGT requests

authority, pursuant to 18 CFR 157.216,

to abandon two 1-inch first-cut

regulators located on NGT’s Line TM–3

in Hot Spring County, Arkansas. NGT

relates that these facilities were

originally installed in 1967, and

certificated in Docket No. CP67–83–000,

to serve ARKLA. NGT says no service is

to be abandoned, and the abandoned

facilities will be reclaimed.

NGT seeks authority to operate the

existing 4-inch tap and 4-inch Skidmounted meter station (which replaced

the one 2-inch tap and 2-inch U-Shape

meter station) on NGT’s Line N in

Section 30, Township 17 North, Range

14 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana in

order to provide transportation services

under Subpart G of Part 284 of the

Commission’s regulations. NGT states

that these facilities were installed in

April 1996, solely to provide services

authorized under Section 311 of the

NGPA and Subpart B of the

Commission’s regulations, to serve

ARKLA’s request for increased volumes.

NGT states the estimated volumes to be

delivered are approximately 127,000

MMBtu annually and 400 MMBtu on a

peak day on an interruptible basis. NGT

says these facilities were constructed at

an estimated cost of $24,193 and

ARKLA will reimburse NGT the total

construction cost.

NGT seeks authority to operate two

existing 1-inch Moonne first-cut

regulators (which replaced the two 1-

inch first-cut regulators) located on

NGT’s Line TM–3 in Section 16,

Township 4 South, Range 16 West, Hot

Spring County, Arkansas in order to

provide transportation services under

Subpart G of Part 284 of the

Commission’s regulations. NGT states

these facilities were installed in March

1996, solely to provide services

authorized under Section 311 of the

NGPA and Subpart B of the

Commission’s regulations to serve

ARKLA’s distribution customers at its

existing Malvern Town Border Station.

NGT states the estimated volumes to be

delivered through these facilities are
29090 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices

approximately 1,460,000 MMBtu

annually and 4,000 MMBtu on a peak

day on an interruptible basis. NGT says

that the facilities were constructed at an

estimated cost of $6,834, and ARKLA

will reimburse NGT $5,150 of the

construction cost.

Comment date: July 15, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph G

at the end of this notice.

2. UtiliCorp Pipeline Systems, Inc.,

Complainant, v. Panhandle Eastern

Pipe Line Company, Respondent

[Docket No. CP96–538–000]

Take notice that on May 23, 1996,

UtiliCorp Pipeline Systems, Inc. (UPL),

10700 East 350 Highway, Kansas City,

Missouri, 64138, filed a complaint in

Docket No. CP96–538–000, pursuant to

Section 5 of the Natural Gas Act and

Rule 206 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure. UPL charges

that Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line

Company (Panhandle) has acted in an

unduly discriminatory and

anticompetitive manner, and requests

that Panhandle be ordered to provide an

interconnection in Cass County,

Missouri, with facilities to be owned by

UPL’s intrastate pipeline subsidiary,

Missouri Pipeline Company (Missouri

Pipeline), all as more fully set forth in

the complaint which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

UPL also requests that, to the extent

that the Commission finds that

additional procedures, such as a show

cause proceeding or an evidentiary

hearing, are required to resolve the

complaint, its complaint be

consolidated with the previously filed

complaints against Panhandle by

Missouri Gas Energy (MGE) in Docket

No. CP95–755 and by Mid Continent

Market Center in Docket No. CP96–270.

UPL states that the evidentiary record is

more developed in those proceedings

and they involve nearly identical facts

and legal questions as represented in

UPL’s complaint.

Missouri Pipeline, a wholly-owned

subsidiary of UPL, plans to acquire an

abandoned oil pipeline and to convert a

portion of the line to natural gas service

as an intrastate pipeline extending about

32 miles from a point near Freeman,

Missouri to a terminus near Sugar Creek

in Jackson County, Missouri. Missouri

Pipeline will use this pipeline, referred

to as the Hawthorne project, to provide

high pressure natural gas service to the

Kansas City Power & Light Company

Hawthorne Power Plant. The Hawthorne

project will also have several other

delivery points into MGE’s local

distribution system.

UPL states that it requested that

Panhandle provide an interconnection

with the Hawthorne project facilities,

and offered to pay all the costs of the

interconnection. UPL states that

Panhandle responded that unless UPL

had incremental firm transportation

agreements for service into the

Hawthorne project facilities, Panhandle

would not allow an interconnection.

UPL avers that Panhandle has, at other

times and places, been willing to

provide interconnections for

interruptible service to end-users, but

refuses to provide interconnections for

potential competitors such as UPL,

MGE, and Mid Continent Market Center.

Comment date: June 21, 1996, in

accordance with the first paragraph of

Standard Paragraph F at the end of this

notice. Answers to the Complaint shall

also be due on or before June 21, 1996.

3. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line

Company

[Docket No. CP96–542–000]

Take notice that on May 24, 1996,

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company

(Panhandle), P.O. Box 1642, Houston,

Texas 77251 filed in Docket No. CP96–

542–000, a petition pursuant to Section

16 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and

Rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.207 (a)(2)), for a declaratory order

concerning the present and future

jurisdictional status of Mid Continent

Market Center, Inc. (Mid Continent).

Panhandle’s reasons for its request are

all more fully set forth in the petition

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

Mid Continent was granted an NGA

Section 1(c) ‘‘Hindshaw’’ exemption

and a Section 284.224 Blanket

Certificate by the Commission in 1995,

see order at 72 FERC ¶ 62,274. Mid

Continent has a complaint pending with

the Commission against Panhandle in

Docket Nos. CP96–270–000 and 001, see

notices at 61 FR 18132 and 61 FR 25854.

The complaint(s) concerns Panhandle’s

interconnection with KN Interstate

Transmission Company’s (KN Interstate)

Haven Line pipeline segment in Reno

County, Kansas. Mid Continent intends

to buy the Haven Line from KN

Interstate and construct a 9-mile

pipeline segment to connect its system

to the Haven Line.

Once such facilities are constructed

and such pipeline interconnections are

available to Mid Continent, Panhandle

says that Mid Continent will no longer

qualify for its Hindshaw exemption,

because Mid Continent will be able to,

and intends to, transport natural gas in

interstate commerce for ultimate

consumption outside the state of

Kansas. Panhandle furthers says that

Mid Continent will then have to file

with the Commission for various

certificate authorizations under Section

7 of the NGA, if it wants to initiate such

interstate transportation services.

Panhandle says that Mid Continent will

have an unfair competitive advantage

over jurisdictional interstate pipelines

who have substantially more regulatory

requirements, if Mid Continent is

allowed to continue to operate under its

Hindshaw exemption.

Panhandle petitions the Commission

to make a finding that Mid Continent

will no longer qualify for its Hindshaw

exemption from the Commission’s

jurisdiction, and that Mid Continent

will become a ‘‘natural gas company’’

subject to the Commission’s

jurisdiction, if Mid Continent completes

its purchase of the Haven Line.

Panhandle also wants the Commission

to confirm that as a natural gas

company, Mid Continent cannot

continue its interstate operations unless

it is granted:

(1) A Section 7(c) certificate to acquire

the Haven Line;

(2) A Section 7(c) certificate to

construct and/or operate any facilities

connected to the Haven Line;

(3) A Section 284.221 Blanket

Certificate; and,

(4) Approval of a Part 284 open access

FERC Gas Tariff.

Further, Panhandle suggests that Mid

Continent may be presently providing

substantial interstate transportation

service between various interstate

pipelines within the state of Kansas,

rather than interstate transportation

service for its parent company, Western

Resources, Inc., a local distribution

company (LDC) in Kansas, and that

LDC’s customers. Panhandle says that

Mid Continent’s Hindshaw exemption

was based on the later and intimates

that Mid Continent’s Hindshaw

exemption may already be in jeopardy

in light of the various recent

Commission rulings cited.

Comment date: June 21, 1996, in

accordance with the first paragraph of

Standard Paragraph F at the end of this

notice.

4. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation

[Docket No. CP96–545–000]

Take notice that on May 29, 1996,

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation (Transco), P. O. Box 1396,

Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket

No. CP96–545–000 an application

pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural

Gas Act for a certificate of public

convenience and necessity for

authorization to construct and operate
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices 29091

certain pipeline facilities on Transco’s

system in order to create additional firm

transportation capacity of the dekatherm

equivalent of 115,000 Mcf of gas per day

(Mcf/d) from points of receipt on

Transco’s Leidy Line to points of

delivery in Transco’s Northeast Market

area by a proposed in-service date of

November 1, 1997 (the SeaBoard

Expansion Project), all as more fully set

forth in the application which is on file

with the Commission and open to

public inspection.

Transco states that the firm

transportation service under the

SeaBoard Expansion Project will be

provided to seven shippers under Rate

Schedule FT of Transco’s FERC Gas

Tariff, Volume No. 1, and Transco’s

blanket certificate under Part 284(G) of

the Commission’s regulations, and

therefore, the SeaBoard firm

transportation service will be subject to

the terms and conditions of Transco’s

tariff as amended from time-to-time.

Transco states that the Seaboard

shippers have committed to firm

transportation service for terms ranging

from 15 to 21 years subject to the receipt

of necessary regulatory approvals

(including rolled-in rates) and the

construction of the necessary facilities.

It is stated that the SeaBoard Expansion

Project will provide SeaBoard shippers

with access to diverse natural gas

supply sources at the Leidy area,

including but not limited to, gas

supplies sources on three

interconnecting pipelines, purchased

from suppliers, or delivered from third

party storage providers at Leidy,

Pennsylvania.

In order to provide the firm

transportation service to the SeaBoard

shippers, Transco proposes to construct,

install and operate five pipeline loop

segments and add a 15,000 horsepower

(hp) compressor at its existing

Compressor Station No. 205.

Transco states that it conducted an

open season from August 7 through

September 6, 1995, during which

requests were accepted for up to

115,000 Mcf/d of firm transportation

from points of receipt on Transco’s

Leidy Line to most points of delivery on

the Transco system. As a result of the

open season, Transco contends that it

executed precedent agreements with

seven shippers for a total of 115,000

Mcf/d of firm transportation capacity,

fully subscribing the project. It is stated

that the list of shippers participating in

the SeaBoard Expansion Project and

their corresponding transportation

quantities and contract terms are set

forth in the following table.

Shipper

Contract

term

(Yrs)

Total transportation

contract quantity

(Mcf/d)

Delmarva Power & Light Company ......................................................................................................................... 20 5,000

Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. ................................................................................................................. 15 28,985

Penn Fuel Gas, Inc. ................................................................................................................................................. 20 1,500

Pennsylvania Gas & Water Company ..................................................................................................................... 20 39,515

Renaissance Energy, Inc. ........................................................................................................................................ 15 15,000

Sun Company, Inc. .................................................................................................................................................. 21 15,000

Union Pacific Fuels, Inc. .......................................................................................................................................... 15 10,000

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 115,000

Consistent with the Commission’s

Statement of Policy and after the

facilities necessary to serve the market

for the Project had generally been

determined, Transco states that it

solicited permanent capacity

relinquishment offers to be effective on

November 1, 1997 from existing

shippers not submitting open season

nominations to reduce the costs of the

SeaBoard Expansion Project, to prevent

the construction of unnecessary

facilities, and to make use of unwanted

firm capacity on the Transco system.

Transco states that it received

permanent capacity release offers from

The Brooklyn Union Gas Company and

Williams Energy Services Company

(WESCO). Transco further states that it

determined that the capacity offered in

these release offers would not reduce

the facilities required to provide firm

service to the SeaBoard shippers. In

addition, it is stated that the release

capacity offered by WESCO was located

outside the capacity path of the Project.

Transco avers that it also received

conditional capacity release offers from

Public Service Electric & Gas Company

(PSE&G) and UGI Utilities, Inc. (UGI)

which were expressly contingent upon

those shippers receiving an equivalent

amount of firm transportation service in

the SeaBoard Expansion Project. It is

stated that the conditional nature of the

capacity release offers was contrary to

the Commission’s Statement of Policy

and to the purpose for which Transco

solicited these offers which was to make

use of unwanted firm transportation

capacity on the system. Transco states

that PSE&G and UGI were given the

opportunity of either participating in

the SeaBoard Expansion Project or

offering permanently released capacity

on an unconditional basis; however,

both PSE&G and UGI declined.

In order to create the 115,000 Mcf/d

of capacity to provide firm

transportation service to the SeaBoard

shippers, Transco proposes to construct

and operate the following facilities:

(1) 10.57 miles of 36-inch diameter

pipeline loop beginning at milepost

161.29 in Lycoming County,

Pennsylvania and ending at milepost

171.86 in Clinton County, Pennsylvania.

(2) 6.67 miles of 36-inch diameter

pipeline loop beginning at milepost

142.74 in Lycoming County,

Pennsylvania and ending at milepost

149.41 in Lycoming County,

Pennsylvania.

(3) 5.46 miles of 42-inch diameter

pipeline loop beginning at milepost

1802.73 in Middlesex County, New

Jersey and ending at milepost 1808.19 in

Union County, New Jersey.

(4) 7.10 miles of 36-inch diameter

pipeline loop beginning at milepost

18.96 in Burlington County, New Jersey

and ending at milepost 26.06 in

Burlington County, New Jersey.

(5) The replacement of an existing 6.3

miles of 12-inch diameter pipeline loop

beginning at milepost 30.53 and ending

at milepost 36.83 in Burlington County,

New Jersey, with a 36-inch diameter

pipeline loop. The 12-inch pipeline

segment will be removed and the 36-

inch replacement pipeline will be

installed in the same trench.

(6) The addition of a new 15,000 hp,

electric motor-driven compressor unit at

Transco’s existing Compressor Station

205 located at milepost 1773.30 in

Mercer County, New Jersey.

(7) Modifications to the existing

Milltown regulator station located at

milepost 1790.84 in Middlesex, New

Jersey, to increase the discharge
29092 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices

pressure into Transco’s mainline E to

800 psig.

(8) Modifications to the existing

Linden regulator station located at

milepost 1808.19 in Union County, New

Jersey, to reduce the pressure in

Transco’s 42-inch Mainline E from 800

psig to 638 psig.

(9) Addition of a 12-inch tap on

Transco’s existing Mainline A at

milepost 1711.67 in Chester County,

Pennsylvania to tie-in to an existing

Transco 16-inch lateral.

(10) Installation of a pressure control

valve and related piping, and a 290 hp

nameplate uprating of six existing

reciprocating engines (for a total

nameplate uprating of 1,740 hp) at

Transco’s existing Compressor Station

200 located at milepost 1722.24 in

Chester County, Pennsylvania.

Transco estimates that the proposed

facilities will cost $117.7 million.

Transco requests that the Commission

grant rolled-in rate treatment of the

costs of the SeaBoard facilities in

Transco’s next Section 4 rate proceeding

which becomes effective following the

in-service date of the Project. It is stated

that the rate impact on existing

customers of rolling in the costs of the

SeaBoard Expansion Project is below

the five percent threshold specified in

the Commission’s Statement of Policy,

71 FERC ¶ 61,241 (1995), for

establishing a presumption in favor of

rolled-in rates and the Project will

produce significant system-wide

operational and financial benefits and

will be operated on an integrated basis

with its existing facilities.

To meet the proposed in-service date

for the SeaBoard Expansion Project,

Transco requests that the Commission

issue a preliminary determination

approving all aspects of the application

other than environmental matters by

November 1, 1996, with a final

determination and all appropriate

certificate authorizations by January 24,

1997.

Comment date: June 21, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

F. Any person desiring to be heard or

make any protest with reference to said

filing should on or before the comment

date file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, a

motion to intervene or a protest in

accordance with the requirements of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and

385.214) and the Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All

protests filed with the Commission will

be considered by it in determining the

appropriate action to be taken but will

not serve to make the protestants parties

to the proceeding. Any person wishing

to become a party to a proceeding or to

participate as a party in any hearing

therein must file a motion to intervene

in accordance with the Commission’s

Rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to

the authority contained in and subject to

jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission by

Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act

and the Commission’s Rules of Practice

and Procedure, a hearing will be held

without further notice before the

Commission or its designee on this

filing if no motion to intervene is filed

within the time required herein, if the

Commission on its own review of the

matter finds that a grant of the

certificate is required by the public

convenience and necessity. If a motion

for leave to intervene is timely filed, or

if the Commission on its own motion

believes that a formal hearing is

required, further notice of such hearing

will be duly given.

Under the procedure herein provided

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be

unnecessary for the applicant to appear

or be represented at the hearing.

G. Any person or the Commission’s

staff may, within 45 days after the

issuance of the instant notice by the

Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214

of the Commission’s Procedural Rules

(18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene

or notice of intervention and pursuant

to Section 157.205 of the Regulations

under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR

157.205) a protest to the request. If no

protest is filed within the time allowed

therefore, the proposed activity shall be

deemed to be authorized effective the

day after the time allowed for filing a

protest. If a protest is filed and not

withdrawn within 30 days after the time

allowed for filing a protest, the instant

request shall be treated as an

application for authorization pursuant

to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14347 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5516–2]

Agency Information Collection

Activities Up for Renewal; Monthly

Progress Reports.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that

EPA is planning to submit the following

continuing Information Collection

Request (ICR) to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB):

Monthly Progress Reports, OMB Control

Number 2030–0005. Before submitting

the ICR to OMB for review and

approval, EPA is soliciting comments on

specific aspects of the proposed

information collection as described

below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before August 6, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Acquisition

Management (3802F), 401 M Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

Attention: Edward N. Chambers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward N. Chambers. (202) 260–6028 /

FAX: (202) 260–1203 /

CHAMBERS.ED@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Affected entities: Entities potentially

affected by this action are EPA

contractors.

Title: Monthly Progress Reports, OMB

Control Number 2030–0005, expiration

date 11–30–96.

Abstract: On a monthly basis,

contractors are required to provide a

progress report detailing what was

accomplished on the contract for that

period of time, what remains to be done,

as well as a general listing of

expenditures for that period of time.

This allows EPA to monitor the

efficiency and cost effectiveness of the

work being performed. Once the

information is received, it is reviewed

against existing financial data,

contractor deliverables, invoices, and

agency records for verification. These

reports are prescribed under clauses in

EPA contracts.

Monthly progress reports contain

confidential business information and

are protected from release in accordance

with 40 CFR Part 2. No sensitive

information is required.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information