Program Change Guidance July 1996

MEMORANDUM FOR:

State and Territory Coastal Management
Program Managers

FROM:

Jeffrey R. Benoit
Director

SUBJECT:

Final Program Change Guidance

Attached is the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management’s (“OCRM”) Final Program Change Guidance. Over the
years OCRM has provided guidance on requirements and submission
procedures for changes made to federally approved state and
territory coastal management programs (“CMPs”). The program
change guidance attached to this memorandum consolidates and
replaces all previous program change guidance. A draft of this
guidance was sent to state and territory coastal management
program managers on March 6, 1996. Seven states submitted
comments, most of which supported the draft guidance. All
issues raised by the commenters were discussed with the relevant
states and resolved or addressed through changes in the final
guidance.
The Program Change Guidance clarifies information and procedural
requirements for program change requests. The focus of the
guidance is to explain the difference between procedures for the
two types of program changes: routine program changes and
program amendments. The guidance also explains a recent update
of the program change regulations. See 61 Fed. Reg. 33801-33819
(1996) (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. part 923). In that update,
OCRM replaced the four criteria by which program change requests
are evaluated with a reference to the five program approvability
areas addressed in the program development regulations: (1)
uses subject to management, (2) special management areas, (3)
boundaries, (4) authorities and organization, and (5)
coordination, public involvement and national interest.
Please contact David Kaiser, Federal Consistency Coordinator,
OCRM, at (301) 713-3098, x 144, if you have any questions on the
program change guidance.
Attachment

2

Program Change
Guidance
The Coastal Zone Management Act and Changes to
State and Territory Coastal Management Programs
July 1996

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

3

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Program Change Guidance:
The Coastal Zone Management Act and Changes to
State and Territory Coastal Management Programs
July 1996

Contents:
I.

Introduction...............................................1

II.

General Information on Program Change Submissions..........2
A.
Definition of Program Change.....................2
B.
Types of Program Changes..............................4
1.
Amendment........................................4
Routine Program Change.................4
2.
3.
Amendment or RPC: When is a program
change “substantial”.............................4
C.
General Procedural Guidance...........................6
1.
Early consultation with OCRM ....................6
2.
Submitting program changes in a timely manner....7
3.
Submitting complete information with
the program
change request..........8
D.
OCRM Review and Approval Criteria.....................8
E.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation.........8

III. Routine Program Changes ...................................9
A.
Information Requirements..............................9
B.
The RPC Process......................................10
IV.

Amendments................................................11
A.
Information Requirements.............................11
B.
The Amendment Process................................13

V.

Clean Air and Water Act Requirements......................14

Appendix A - Program Change Regulations
(61 Fed. Reg. 33815-33816 (1996))..............................16
Appendix B - Five Program Approval Areas and Detailed
Explanations...................................................19
Appendix C - Preamble to Final Rule Issued on June 28, 1996....22

1
I.

Introduction

This guidance clarifies information and procedural requirements
for program change requests by state and territory coastal
management programs (“CMP”) pursuant to the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (“CZMA”) and its implementing
regulations. This guidance augments the program change
requirements found at CZMA section 306(e)(16 U.S.C. § 1455(e))
and 15 C.F.R. Part 923, Subpart H [redesignated]. 1 The focus of
the guidance is to explain the difference between procedures for
the two types of program changes: routine program changes and
program amendments.
The guidance also explains a recent update of the program change
regulations. See 61 Fed. Reg. 33801-33819 (1996) (to be
codified at 15 C.F.R. part 923); Appendix A (for subpart H). In
that update, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(“OCRM”) replaced the four criteria by which program change
requests are evaluated with a reference to the five program
approvability areas addressed in the program development
regulations: (1) uses subject to management, (2) special
management areas, (3) boundaries, (4) authorities and
organization, and (5) coordination, public involvement and
national interest. The preamble to the final rule issued on
June 28, 1996, contains additional explanation of the program
change regulations. See Appendix C of this guidance.
This guidance is, for the most part, not new. The intent of the
changes to the regulations and this guidance is to reduce
information and paperwork burdens on states and OCRM and to
clarify that most changes to state CMPs are not substantial and
are routine program changes. This guidance does not apply
retroactively to any program change previously approved by OCRM.
See also Appendix C of this guidance.
Please contact your OCRM Coastal Programs Division (“CPD”)
program specialist for further assistance.

1

While OCRM moved the program change regulations within 15
C.F.R. Part 923 from Subpart I to Subpart H, the citations to
individual program change regulatory sections remain the same.

2
II.

General Information on Program Change Submissions

This section of the guidance provides general information on
program changes, definitions, and general procedural points.
Sections III and IV provide detailed guidance for routine
program changes (“RPCs”)(formerly called routine program
implementations or RPIs) and amendments, respectively.
A.

Definition of Program Change

A program change is any amendment, modification, or other change
to a federally approved CMP. 16 U.S.C. § 1455(e). Changes in
the manner in which states manage coastal uses and resources,
that affect approved CMPs, must be reviewed by OCRM with respect
to the original approval of the state CMP. Changes that do not
affect the CMP should not be submitted as a program change.
Changes that must be submitted are those that (1) affect the CMP
as approved by OCRM, (2) the state CMP wishes to spend CZMA
funds on, and (3) the state CMP wishes to use for federal
consistency. For example, if a state makes a minor substantive
change to an enforceable policy, then the state must submit the
change to OCRM for approval in order to use the policy for
federal consistency purposes. See also Appendix C of this
guidance.
The program development and approval regulations establish five
program areas. See 15 C.F.R. Part 923, Subparts B, C, D, E and
F. Thus, program changes are changes to one or more of these
five areas. The program areas are:
1.

Uses Subject to Management (15 C.F.R. Part 923,
Subpart B)

2.

Special Management Areas (15 C.F.R. Part 923,
Subpart C)

3.

Boundaries (15 C.F.R. Part 923, Subpart D)

4.

Authorities and Organization (15 C.F.R. Part 923,
Subpart E)

5.

Coordination, Public Involvement and National Interest
(15 C.F.R. Part 923, Subpart F)

3
Subparts B through F of Part 923 provide a detailed explanation
of each of these headings. States may refer to these subparts
for assistance in their analysis of a program change. These
subparts and detailed explanations, and statutory citations, are
also listed in Appendix B of this program change guidance.
State CMPs need only discuss the subparts (or detailed
explanation of those subparts) that apply to a particular
program change.
Examples of program changes include, but are not limited to:
-

Changes to boundaries or organization of approved
CMPs.

-

Changes to new or revised enforceable policies that
may be contained in statutes, executive orders,
implementing regulations and memoranda of agreement,
which comprise a CMP.

-

Additions of or revisions to enforceable local coastal
programs (“LCPs”) incorporated into a CMP (if the
change to an LCP affects the approved CMP, or the
state CMP wants to use CZMA funds to implement the
change, or the state intends to use the change for
federal consistency purposes).

-

New or revised Special Area Management Plans or other
plans for specific areas that are not LCPs such as
Areas of Particular Concern.

-

Changes to policies and procedures affecting state or
federal consistency review or federal agency, local
government, and public participation.

-

Changes to guidelines, policy documents, manuals,
which provide additional information to public and
private entities concerning how CMP requirements can
be met or which provide specific interpretations of
the general standards in the CMP.

-

Additions or deletions to listed permits for federal
consistency.

4
B.

Types of Program Changes

The CZMA regulations define two types of program changes:
amendments and RPCs. OCRM anticipates that most program changes
will continue to be routine.
1.

Amendment

Amendments are defined in 15 C.F.R. § 923.80(d), as substantial
changes in one or more of the five program areas identified in
subparts B through F of Part 923. These areas are listed above
in section II.A. and Appendix B of this guidance. Appendix C of
this guidance contains additional discussion of section
923.80(d).
2.

Routine Program Changes

RPCs are the further detailing of a state CMP that does not
result in a substantial change to one or more of the five
program areas identified in subparts B through F of Part 923.
See 15 C.F.R. § 923.84(a). State CMPs should, prior to
submitting a program change, obtain CPD’s preliminary view as to
whether the change is an RPC or an amendment. Such prior
consultations will facilitate the process by giving OCRM a
better understanding of the proposed change and should reduce
the overall work effort of both the state CMP and OCRM. The
scope of a change may be such that OCRM can (1) determine, prior
to receiving an RPC submission, that the change is an amendment,
or (2) identify information and analysis requirements necessary
to support the RPC.
3.

Amendment or RPC:
“substantial?”

When is a program change

The key in determining whether a program change is an amendment
or an RPC is whether a change in one or more of the five program
areas is “substantial.” The indicators and examples below
illustrate that most program changes will continue to be RPCs,
and not substantial changes to CMPs; that a substantial change
is a high threshold. (The closer a program change is to this
threshold, the more information and analysis will be required.)
Whether a program change is substantial is based on a case-bycase determination. Indicators of a substantial change include:

5
1.

New or revised enforceable policies that address
coastal uses or resources not previously managed (or
major changes in the way a state CMP manages coastal
uses or resources) may be substantial. It will often
depend on the scope of the change. (New or revised
enforceable policies that make minor revisions to
existing CMP components are generally not substantial
changes.)

2.

The extent to which the proposed change impacts the
national interest reflected in the CZMA such as, OCS
oil and gas development, energy facility siting, water
and air quality.

3.

The extent to which the proposed change is similar to
past program change requests (by any state) that were
treated as amendments.

One example of how “substantial” is applied is when a coastal
county adopted a revision to its LCP that would prohibit all
offshore oil and gas related development within its waters and
on its land. OCRM preliminarily considered this change to be an
amendment. In addition, its approvability was questioned due to
inadequate consideration of the national interest in energy
facility siting and uses of regional benefit. Eventually OCRM
approved the change as being routine, but only because the
change was limited in scope geographically, there were sound
economic and environmental reasons, and the state CMP had the
authority to override any local decisions that substantially
affected the national interest. OCRM also conditioned the
approval on the fact that the oil and gas industry was not shut
out of the state’s entire coastal zone. OCRM noted that if
other coastal counties adopted similar policies, those changes
would likely be reviewed as amendments because of the cumulative
impact on the national interest in energy facility siting in the
state.
Whether a change is substantial is further illustrated by the
development of local government components by three different
states. (1) The first state proposed a routine change to its
program by incorporating a new statute and regulations requiring
the development of local government plans and ordinances. The
local plans and ordinances themselves were not included in the
program change. The state felt that the statute and regulations

6
contained sufficient enforceable policies for federal
consistency purposes. OCRM concurred that the change was
routine after determining that the statute and regulations were
based on or contained existing enforceable policies that
addressed coastal uses and resources currently included in the
CMP. The new statute and regulations applied these existing
policies to new areas of the state (but did not expand the
coastal zone).

(2) The routine nature of local government change in the first
example is distinguished from an earlier instance where another
state’s statute and regulations requiring local governments to
develop coastal management plans and ordinances was substantial.
In the second state, the statute and regulations mandated a
program that managed coastal uses and resources in an entirely
new way and with new enforceable policies. Even though the
local plans and ordinances were not incorporated, the new
policies and program included in the statute and regulations was
a substantial change and, therefore, an amendment.
(3) The third state proposes a similar local government
component. The state also intends to incorporate the LCPs into
the CMP. Incorporation of the LCPs is needed as the statute and
the regulations merely specify the types of activities that must
be included in the LCPs and do not contain many new enforceable
policies. OCRM has preliminarily determined that this would be
a substantial change to the CMP and should be submitted as an
amendment.
C.

General Procedural Guidance
1.

Early consultation with OCRM

When possible, states should consult with CPD staff to discuss
possible changes during program change development and prior to
state adoption. States should informally submit proposed
statutory or regulatory language to CPD staff so that (1)
potential conflicts can be identified prior to incorporation
into state authorities, (2) CPD staff can help clarify whether
the program change is an amendment or RPC, and (3) CPD can
ensure that the program change submission will satisfy all
procedural, information, and public notice requirements.

7
Lack of early consultation with OCRM can lead to problems.
State CMPs often submit program changes to OCRM only after they
have been adopted into state law or regulation. In some cases,
OCRM was unaware that such changes were being considered. This
has two possible negative effects. The change may cause a state
CMP to fall below the requirements of CZMA section 306(d) and 15
C.F.R. Part 923. Also, state implementation of changes not
approved by OCRM could lead to adverse evaluation findings.
We also recommend that you consult early with federal agencies
that could be affected by the changes you are considering. OCRM
has received complaints from federal agencies that they are not
involved early at the state level in program change
deliberations. (States are required to provide an opportunity
for federal agency involvement in the development of an
amendment. See 15 C.F.R. § 923.81(b)(5).) Federal agencies may
raise problems during OCRM processing and may cause delay in
approval of the state’s program change request. If a state
believes that a federal agency consistently does not participate
during state review process, the state may ask OCRM’s assistance
in encouraging federal agency participation.
2.

Submitting program changes in a timely manner

The CZMA requires that state CMPs promptly notify OCRM of any
proposed change to its approved CMP. 16 U.S.C. § 1455(e)(1).
OCRM may suspend all or part of a CZMA section 306 award pending
the submission of proposed changes to a CMP. Id. Program
changes should be submitted on a regular basis, both to avoid
processing delays caused by large volume submissions and to
assure that a CMP is up to date. NOAA regulations allow the
submission of changes either “on a case-by-case basis,
periodically throughout the year, or annually.” 15 C.F.R.
§ 923.84(b)(1)(i). Each CMP should develop and maintain a
submission schedule with its CPD contact.
The regular and timely submission of program changes is also
important to keep a program up to date. Except as provided
under 16 U.S.C. § 1455(e)(3)(B), until program changes are
approved by OCRM and a public notice of OCRM’s approval is
published by the state CMP, the state CMP may not use the
program changes for CZMA section 307 federal consistency
purposes and CZMA section 306 funds may not be used to implement
the proposed change.

8
3.

Submitting complete information with the program
change request

State CMPs should ensure that all required information is
included in the program change request. Incomplete requests
result in a delay of OCRM’s review pending receipt of additional
information from the state. The necessary substantive and
procedural information requirements are included in sections III
and IV of this guidance.
D.

OCRM Review and Approval Criteria

OCRM reviews all program change requests, whether an amendment
or an RPC, on a case-by-case basis to determine if the program
change is approvable. OCRM determines whether the CMP, if
amended, would continue to satisfy the applicable program
approval criteria of CZMA section 306(d) and 15 C.F.R. Part 923,
Subparts B through F. See 15 C.F.R. § 923.82(a), section II.A.
and, for more detailed criteria, Appendix B of this guidance.
For routine changes, OCRM determines whether it concurs with the
state’s assessment that the action is an RPC. 15 C.F.R. §
923.84(b)(3). OCRM will also evaluate whether any policies to
be added are preempted by federal law. The proposed change, in
conjunction with the CMP, must be applied to all relevant public
and private activities, and not discriminate against a federal
agency or activity.
E.

Endangered Species Act Consultation

If the program change may affect federally listed endangered
species or their critical habitat, OCRM will consult with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) or the National Marine
Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) pursuant to our obligations under the
Endangered Species Act. We encourage state CMPs to consult
informally with the FWS or NMFS on any such changes prior to its
adoption as a matter of state law. Any comments the state CMP
receives from FWS or NMFS should be included in the program
change package.

9
III. Routine Program Changes
A.

Information Requirements

RPCs must be submitted to the Chief of CPD by the designated CMP
agency. The requirements for RPC requests are found at 15
C.F.R. § 923.84. The level of detail in the state CMP’s
analysis and information depends on the scope of the change.
The state CMP’s analysis should be more detailed for more
substantive changes. Minor RPCs require minimal information and
analysis. The amount of information and analysis should be
discussed with OCRM prior to submittal. The information
requirements contained in 15 C.F.R. § 923.84 are:
1.

A complete copy of the text of the program change.

2.

An identification of any new or changed policies, both
enforceable and advisory. At a minimum identification
of the policies should list the sections of the
statute, regulation, ordinance, etc. The state CMP’s
analysis should include the mechanism (e.g., zoning,
permit) by which the state ensures that any new or
changed enforceable policies are legally binding under
state law.

3.

A description of the nature of the program change,
including specific pages of the management program
proposed to be changed. The description must include
an analysis that explains why the program change is an
RPC and not an amendment. In other words, the
explanation should describe what elements of the
approved program are affected, and explain why the
proposed change will not result in a substantial
change to one or more of the five program
approvability areas identified in Part 923, subparts B
through F.

4.

A copy of the state CMP’s public notice of the
submittal to OCRM. This notice must be distributed to
the general public and affected parties, including
local governments, other state agencies, and regional
offices of relevant federal agencies (or the agency’s
headquarters if it does not maintain a regional
office), as well as a listing of individuals notified

10
of the RPC. The public notice must be published at
the same time or before (but not after) the state
submits the program change package to OCRM.
Electronic notification may be used, but may not be
the exclusive method of notification (many people and
organizations do not yet have access to the Internet
or other means of electronic transfer).
The public notice must:
a.

b.

Indicate that the state considers the change to
be an RPC and has requested OCRM’s
concurrence in that determination; and
c.

5.

Describe the nature of the program change
and identify any enforceable policies to be
added to the CMP.

Indicate that any comments on whether or not
the action does or does not constitute an
RPC may be submitted to OCRM within three
weeks of the date of issuance of the notice.

In addition, the state CMP may submit any comments
from state and federal agencies or the public or other
information received during the development and review
process which could aid OCRM’s review.

B. The RPC Process
The state CMP submits the RPC request to the Chief of CPD. OCRM
has four weeks from the date of receipt of the request to
complete its review and make a final determination. 15 C.F.R.
§ 923.84(b)(3). OCRM’s final determination will be in writing
(either mailed, faxed, or electronically transmitted).
Submitted RPC packages will be distributed to appropriate OCRM
and NOAA Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services staff for
substantive review. If no additional information is needed by
OCRM and OCRM concurs with the state CMP’s determination, then
the Director of OCRM will provide written concurrence (either
mailed, faxed, or electronically transmitted) to the state CMP.
If OCRM does not concur, the state CMP will be advised to either

11
submit the change as an amendment or resubmit the RPC with
additional information requested by OCRM concerning how the
program will be changed as a result of the action.
If the RPC package is incomplete, two actions may occur: (1)
OCRM may deny the RPC request and the denial letter will
identify deficiencies in the RPC package, or (2) rather than
deny the request, the state CMP may request a suspension of the
four week deadline in order to resolve any differences between
the state and OCRM on the content of an RPC request. Upon
resolution, the review period would resume.
When OCRM concurs with the state CMP’s RPC request, the state
CMP must then provide notice to the general public and affected
parties, including local governments, other state agencies, and
relevant federal agencies. This notice shall:
l.

Indicate the date on which the state CMP received concurrence from OCRM and that the action constitutes an
RPC;

2.

Reference the earlier public notice for a description
of the content of the RPC action; and

3.

Indicate if federal consistency applies as of the date
of the new notice.

Until the state CMP publishes this notice the provisions of this
change cannot be used for federal consistency purposes.

IV.
A.

Amendments
Information Requirements

The amendment submittal and review process addresses both CZMA
and NEPA requirements. Relevant CZMA requirements are found at
section 306(e) and 15 C.F.R. §§ 923.80 - 923.83. See also
Appendix C of this guidance for information contained in the
preamble to the final rule issued on June 28, 1996.
Program amendment requests must be submitted to OCRM by the
Governor of a coastal state or by the head of the designated
state 306 agency, if the governor has delegated this

12
responsibility and the delegation is part of the approved CMP.
15 C.F.R. § 923.81(a). Information requirements for amendment
requests are set forth at 15 C.F.R. § 923.81. In brief, the
request must include the following:
1.

A description of the proposed change, including
specific pages and text of the management program that
are proposed for amendment. This description shall
also identify any enforceable policies to be added to
the management program. The state CMP’s analysis
should include the mechanism (e.g., zoning, permit) by
which the state ensures that the policies are legally
binding under state law.

2.

An explanation of why the program change is necessary
and appropriate, including a detailed analysis of the
effects of the change on the approvability of the
program.

3.

A copy of the public notice(s) announcing the public
hearing(s) on the proposed amendment. The state must
hold at least one public hearing on the proposed
amendment, pursuant to CZMA section 306(d)(4). The
notice must precede the hearing by at least 30 days.
The state’s public hearing may be concurrent with
OCRM’s review.

4.

A summary of the hearing(s).

5.

Documentation of opportunities provided relevant
federal (including appropriate federal regional
offices), state, regional, and local agencies, port
authorities, and other public and private parties to
participate in the development and approval of the
amendment at the state level (prior to submission to
OCRM as an amendment).

13
B.

The Amendment Process

OCRM reviews amendment requests according to the procedures
described at 15 C.F.R. § 923.82. As a first step, OCRM
undertakes a preliminary review to determine whether a CMP, if
amended as proposed, would still constitute an approvable
program. See section II.D. of this guidance for OCRM’s approval
criteria.
OCRM will prepare and disseminate internally a set of
preliminary findings of approval or disapproval. If the
Director of OCRM determines that the program, if amended, would
no longer be approvable, or that the procedural requirements of
the CZMA have not been met, the state CMP will be advised in
writing of the reasons the amendment request may not be
approved. The state CMP may, of course, modify its amendment
request and resubmit it for approval by the Director.
If the Director determines, as a preliminary matter, that the
program as amended remains approvable, the Director must decide
whether an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is required as
part of the approval process. If an EIS is necessary, OCRM,
with state CMP assistance, will prepare and distribute a draft
EIS and final EIS according to Council on Environmental Quality
guidelines and NOAA procedures.
If an EIS may not be necessary, OCRM will prepare an
Environmental Assessment (“EA”), with state CMP assistance as
requested. The EA either leads to a Finding of No Significant
Impact (“FONSI”) or a determination that the effects of the
proposed amendment are such that an EIS must be prepared.
Following completion of the NEPA review process and consultation
as appropriate with FWS or NMFS, OCRM will take final action to
approve or disapprove the amendment request. Notice of the
proposed decision on the amendment, as well as the statement
that federal consistency applies as of the date the amendment is
approved, will be published by OCRM in the Federal Register.
If a state implements an amendment despite notification from the
Director of OCRM that the amendment would render the management
program unapprovable, that state may be subject to withdrawal of
program approval and withdrawal of administrative funding. See

14
15 C.F.R. § 928.5(a)(3)(G)[to be redesignated at 15 C.F.R.
§ 923.135(a)(3)(G)].
The time frame for review and approval of amendment requests is
established by CZMA section 306(e)(2). Within 30 days of
receiving an amendment request, OCRM must notify the state CMP
whether it approves or disapproves the amendment, or whether it
is necessary to extend the review for a period not to exceed 120
days. OCRM may extend the review period further, if necessary
to meet NEPA requirements.
If a serious disagreement occurs between a state CMP proposing
an amendment and federal agencies objecting to the amendment,
the Governor, or the head of the state CMP agency, or the head
of the relevant federal agency may request mediation by the
Secretary of Commerce under CZMA section 307(h). 15 C.F.R. §
923.54.
V.

Clean Air and Water Act Requirements

Requirements established by the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air
Act, or established by the Federal Government or by any state or
local government pursuant to such Acts shall be incorporated in
CMPs and shall be the water pollution control and air pollution
control requirements applicable to such program. Section 307(f)
of the CZMA provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of [the CZMA],
nothing in [the CZMA] shall in any way affect any
requirement (1) established by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, or the Clean Air
Act, as amended, or (2) established by the Federal
Government or by any state or local government
pursuant to such Acts. Such requirements shall be
incorporated in any program developed pursuant to [the
CZMA] and shall be the water pollution control and air
pollution control requirements applicable to such
program.
State CMPs do not have to submit these requirements as program
changes. However, state CMPs must notify OCRM, federal, state,
and local agencies, and other interested parties, of the
incorporation of the requirements into the state CMP. The lead
coastal management agency may provide the required notice at
various points in the rule-making process, e.g., (1) when the

15
requirements are distributed for public comment, the state CMP
may choose to add a provision stating that the rules, when
adopted, will be incorporated into the CMP, or (2) after the
rules have been adopted, the state CMP may send a notice to the
state CMP’s program change mailing list indicating that the
requirements are now incorporated into the coastal management
program and indicating the applicability of federal consistency.

OMB Control # 0648-0119, expires June 2001. OCRM requires this information
in order to adequately assess the eligibility of proposed changes to state
and territory coastal management programs. Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 8 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to Joseph A. Uravitch, AICP, Chief,
Coastal Programs Division, OCRM, 1305 East-West Hwy., 11th Floor, Silver
Spring, Maryland 20910. This reporting is required under and is authorized
under 16 U.S.C. § 1455 and 15 C.F.R. part 923, subpart H. Information
submitted will be treated as public records. Notwithstanding any other
provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any
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 displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

dk\prog\prochng.2

16

Appendix A
Program Change Regulations
61 Fed. Reg. 33815-33816 (1996)
(to be codified at 15 C.F.R. part 923)

19

Appendix B - Five Program Approval Areas and Detailed
Explanations
A proposed change in one or more of the areas listed below, and
the detailed explanations of the areas, or in the way a state
CMP manages these areas, would be a program change. OCRM also
uses this list to evaluate whether a state’s CMP would continue
to satisfy these criteria if a proposed change is approved.
1.

Uses Subject to Management (15 C.F.R. Part 923, Subpart B)
- Permissible land uses and water uses within the coastal
zone which have a direct and significant impact on coastal
waters and how these uses will be managed.
CZMA § 306(d)(2)(B).
- The planning process and the enforceable policies for
energy facilities likely to be located in, or which may
significantly affect, the coastal zone.
CZMA § 306(d)(2)(H).
- The CMP’s method of assuring that local land use and
water use regulations within the coastal zone do not
unreasonably restrict or exclude land uses and water uses
of regional benefit. CZMA § 306(d)(12).
- The inventory and designation of areas that contain one
or more coastal resources of national significance; and the
enforceable policies to protect such resources.
CZMA § 306(d)(13).

2.

Special Management Areas (15 C.F.R. Part 923, Subpart C)
- Designation of areas of particular concern within the
coastal zone. CZMA § 306(d)(2)(C).
- Guidelines on priorities of uses in particular areas,
including specifically those uses of lowest priority. CZMA
§ 306(d)(2)(E).
- The term “beach” and the planning process and
enforceable policies for the protection of, and access to,
public beaches and other public coastal areas.
CZMA § 306(d)(2)(G).

20
- The planning process for assessing the effects of, and
studying and evaluating ways to control, or lessen the
impact of, shoreline erosion, and to restore areas
adversely affected by such erosion. CZMA § 306(d)(2)(I).
- The CMP’s procedures for specifying areas that may be
designated for the purpose of preserving or restoring them
for their conservation, recreational, ecological,
historical, or esthetic values. CZMA § 306(d)(9).
3.

Boundaries (15 C.F.R. Part 923, Subpart D)
-

4.
E)

Boundaries of the coastal zone.

CZMA § 306(d)(2)(a).

Authorities and Organization (15 C.F.R. Part 923, Subpart

-

CMP enforceable polices.

CZMA § 306(d)(2)(D).

- The organizational structure approved to implement the
management program. CZMA § 306(d)(2)(F).
- The designated single State agency to receive and
administer grants for implementing the CMP. CZMA
§ 306(d)(6).
- The State organization to implement the management
program. CZMA § 306(d)(7).
- The State’s authority for the management of the coastal
zone in accordance with the management program, including
the authority to administer land use and water use
regulations to control development to ensure compliance
with the management program, and to resolve conflicts among
competing uses; and to acquire fee simple and less than fee
simple interests in land, waters, and other property
through condemnation or other means when necessary to
achieve conformance with the management program. CZMA §
306(d)(10).
- The state CMPs general techniques for control of land
uses and water uses within the coastal zone. CZMA
§ 306(d)(11).

21
- The State’s mechanism to ensure that all State agencies
will adhere to the program. CZMA § 306(d)(15).
- The enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program of the State
required by section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. CZMA § 306(d)(16).
5.

Coordination, Public Involvement and National Interest (15
C.F.R. Part 923, Subpart F)
- The mechanism for continuing consultation and
coordination between the lead CMP agency and with local
governments, interstate agencies, regional agencies, and
area wide agencies within the coastal zone. CZMA
§ 306(d)(3)(B).
- The CMP’s consideration of the national
involved in planning for, and managing the
including the siting of facilities such as
facilities which are of greater than local
CZMA § 306(d)(8).

interest
coastal zone,
energy
significance.

- The CMP’s procedures for public participation in
permitting processes, consistency determinations, and other
similar decisions. CZMA § 306(d)(14).
-

The CMPs federal consistency procedures.

22

Appendix C
Preamble to the Final Rule Issued on
June 28, 1996.