1

SUPPOR TI

NG STATEMENT FOR THE NATI ONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

**A. JUSTIFICATION 1.**  **Identification of the Information Collection 1(a**  **) Title**

- National Estuary Program (Renewal) **1(b) Characterization/Abstract** Section 320 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA) amendments of 1987 established the National Estuary Program (NEP) to promote long

- term planning and management in nationally significant estuaries threatened by

pollution, development, or overuse. The NEP ’ s objectives are to protect, preserve, and re store estuaries. The strategy of the P rogram is to focus on estuaries that are nationally significant in rec reational and commercial value and are of great importance for fish and wildlife resources. Another facet of national significance is whether less ons learned in working with the estuary

can be applied to other coastal areas. Further, the NEP str ategy emphasizes estuaries that are facing increasing environmental stressors and where there is a greater likelihood that NEP efforts will result in improv ements in water and sediment quality , as well as in the abundance and variety of living resources. Nationally

significant estuaries are identified in one of two way s: 1) the estuary is nominated by

the State in which it lies; or 2) the Administrator ident ifies an estuary and decides to convene a Management Conference (the local managing entity of an NEP). When the Governor of the State in which the estuary is located nominates the estuary for acceptance into the NEP, EPA then evaluates the Governor ’ s nomi nation. I f EPA approves the addition of an estuary to the NEP, a Management Conference is convened which involves community stakeholders including Federal, State, local, and interstate agencies with jurisdiction over the estuary , and other interested grou ps. E stuaries have come into the NEP in five groups . T he first two groups included 12 estuaries which Congress recommended for priority consideration . In 1987, Albemarle

- Pamlico Sounds in North Carolina ; B uzzards Bay in Massachusetts ; L ong I sland Sound in New York and Connecticut ; N arragansett Bay in Rhode I sland ; P uget Sound in Washington ; and San Francisco Bay in California entered in to the NEP. In 1989 , Delaware Inland Bay s in Delaware ; D elaware Bay in Delaware, New Jersey , and Pennsylvania ; G alvesto n Bay in Texas ; New York

- New Jersey Harbor in New York and New Jersey ; S anta Monica Bay in California ; and Sarasota Bay in Florida entered in to the NEP . The nominations were evaluated using EPA Nomination G uidance. In 1991, the third group of estuaries was designated based on Governors ’ nominations . These estuaries were In dian River L agoon in Florida ; Tampa Bay in Florida ; B arataria

- Terrebonne Estuarine Complex in L ouisiana ; C asco Bay in Maine ; and Massachusetts Note: This supporting stateme nt is from the previous I CR in 2009, the numbers will be updated to reflect changes in the NEP for the final FR Notice.2

Bay s in Massachusetts

.
The first 17 estuaries were established on the basis of completing a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) with in five y ears. In an effort to maximize successes of these, the Administrator opened a fourth group of nominations in 1991 which called for the completion of the planning process in four years. In 1992, four estuaries were designated under this streamlined approach: Peconic Bay in New York ; S an Juan Bay in Puerto Rico ; Corpus Christi Bay s in Texas ; and Tillamook Bay in Oregon. Continuing the theme of streamlining, the Administrator designated seven new estuaries in 1995 which were to complete their CCMPs in three y ears: Great Bay in New Hampshire ; B arnegat Bay in New Jersey ; M aryland Coastal Bay s in Maryland , C harlotte Harbor in Florida ; M obi le Bay in Alabama ; M orro Bay

in California ; and Lo wer Columbia River in Washington and Oregon

. Once an estuary

is designated by

the Administrator, an agreement of intent between the EPA and the State or States, called a Conference Agreement, establishes the governing entity for the project which is called a Management Conference. The Management Conference performs an objective, technical assessment of the condition of the estuary . Based on this assessment, the Conference summarizes the estuary ’ s environm ental challenges and indicates which challenges will be addressed by

the Conference. After the estuary ’ s priorities are identified, the Management Conference establishes goals and objectives for the estuary . Specific actions and commitments to protect an d restore the estuary are developed and the costs and benefits of options are evaluated. This information is used by the Management Conference to develop a CCMP for the estuary . Once the CCMP is approved by the Administrator, the NEP is responsible for o versight, coordination, and facilitation of CCMP implementation activities. To obtain funding to administer Management Conferences, to characterize and define environmental challenges of the estuary , and to develop the CCMP, States and other eligible appl icants may

apply for federal funds using a standard General Federal Assistance application. To ensure efficient use of allotted resources, an annual work plan for each estuary program must be developed by

the Management Conference before individual awards can be approved. The approved work plan then becomes a part of the grant agreement between EPA and the recipient.
Inaddition, NEPs must also undergo a program evaluation every three y ears. The purpose of the program evaluation is to document progress made in implementing the CCMP ; t o highlight successes, strengths, and environmental results ; and identify areas for improvement. This information is used by EPA to make d ecisions regarding funding to NEPs who are implementing their management plans, to tr ansfer lessons learned in the NEPs to other coastal watersheds and EPA programs, and to provide guidance and programmatic support to NEPs based on needs identified in the program evaluation

. In dividual NEPs must also develop Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) reports that provide information about environmental results and progress implementing their CCMPs. These are submitted annually with the information being presented to the Office of Management3

and Budget (OMB) with other EPA GPRA m easures. **2. Need for and use of the Collection**  **2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection** Statutory authority for the NEP is provided by Section 320 of the Clean Water Act, as amended. The terms and conditions of grants under the NEP are provid ed in 40 CFR Section 35.9040 and Section 3 5.9045, including the requirement for the 50 percent matching funds from non - Federal sources and applications that are consistent with the annual work plan prepared by each Management Conference. For each NEP, oth er than standard application data, EPA needs: 1) the Governor ’ s voluntary nomination to determine whether an estuary should be included in the NEP; 2) the annual work plan to determine how the F ederal and non

- Federal matching funds will be spent; 3) progr am evaluation package documenting CCMP implementation progress to justify continued EPA funding under S ection 320; and 4) annual GPRA reports to show environmental results. The State ’ s participation in the NEP is voluntary . A Governor nominates an estu ary for the NEP on his or her own initiative using Guidance which EPA has established. The information from the Governor includes already available knowledge about the estuary and its importance. The nomination also contains the Governor ’ s views concerni ng the significance of the estuary , the need for designation, and the State ’ s goals and objectives for the estuary with it’s a strategy for meeting them. To select an estuary for designation, EPA uses the nomination and other existing public information o n the national significance of the estuary , considers the importance of the estuary on a regional scale, and analy zes the environmental challenges facing the estuary

. To obtain funding under the NEP, the General Federal Assistance Grant application must b e filed and an annual work plan must be prepared. The burden of the actual grant application is covered under the I CR for General Federal Assistance applications **(** IC R No. 0938 .11 ; OMB No. 20 3 0

- 0 020 ) . The only

burdens covered under this I CR are the burden s of preparing the annual work plan, the program evaluation package , and GPRA reports which are specific to the NEP. General Federal Assistance Grant application burdens are not unique to the NEP and are not covered by

this document. The annual work pl an identifies and discusses major projects with goals and milestones that will be pursued in the upcoming ye ar. The goals are comprehensive and broad and are based on the individual NEP’s goals established by the Management Conference. In addition, the w ork plan must document the sources , amounts, and kinds of funds for the upcoming y ear ’ s activities, including a demonstration of how the required matching funds will be provided from non

- Federal sources. NEPs must report every

three y ears to EPA on their progress in implementing the CCMP4

and achieving environmental results through the program evaluation

. NEPs must also annually prepare a GPRA report estimating : 1) the number of acres of habitat being restored within their study areas , and 2) the number of CCMP priority actions being initiated. **2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data** The EPA Administrator uses the information collected under this I CR to evaluate Governors ’ voluntary nominations of estuaries for the NEP and whether gr ant applications under the NEP should be approved. The following paragraphs describe information required by the NEP :  Respondents
 Process and techniques used to obtain this information
 How and by

whom the information is used
 Flow of information and where it is submitted, filed, etc. (A) Governor ’ s Nomination A Governor ’ s nomination is submitted on a one

- time basis only by States that wish to participate in the NEP, and nominations are accepted only when the A dministrator determines that additional pro grams are needed and that sufficient resources are available to support them. At this time, the EPA does not anticipate soliciting nominations in the information collection period of 2010

- 2012

. A Governor ’ s nomination is submitted by a State in which the target estuary lies. I f the estuary

is located in more than one State, a single nomination may be submitted for the estuary

which combines the information from all the participating States. The National Estuary

Program Final Guidance on the Contents of the Governor ’ s Nomination states that three general topics should be addressed in the nomination: 1) national significance of the estuary , 2) need for a Management Conference, and 3) likelihood of success

. Much of the information included in a Governor ’ s n omination is based on previous a ccomplish ments b y States, EPA Regions, and local organizations. Information is also available in EPA ’ s 305(b) reports ; NOAA ’ s National Estuarine Inventory ; NOAA ’ s Coastal Zone Management, Estuarine Research , and Marine Sanc tuary Programs ; and university studies. In the Guidance , States are urged to use existing and readily available information in the nominations. New research and studies are not required. For example, data attained from the State economic development age ncy

or a community

business group can be used to evaluate recreational and/or commercial value of the estuary . The uses of the specific information recommended for inclusion in the nomination are described below : Describe estuary ’

s boundaries

- To determi ne if estuary

meets CWA definition. Describe estuary ’

s value

- To determine if estuary

is nationally

significant.5

Demonstrate how problems will yield transferable results

- To determine how an estuary will enhance results that can be applied to other estuar ine or coastal watersheds. Data on economic and living resources

- To determine if estuary

has significant local or regional value. Data on problems

- To determine if problems reduce value of estuarine resources. Discussion of cause and effect

- To determine if the problem is sufficiently understood so as to be addressed effectively

. Assess existing laws, regulations, control programs, enforcement , and coordination

- To determine if the proposed estuary program entails studies and control efforts beyond these p rograms. List overall goals for the estuary and provide examples of specific objectives and action plans

- To demonstrate whether State has an understanding of the work which must be done to mitigate problems. List structure and membership of proposed Management Conference

- To demonstrate broad stakeholder support for the program. Document existence of and/or potential for generating public support

- To determine whether there is or will be sufficient public support for successful implementation of the progr am. Discuss interests and agencies already working in the estuary

- To determine these public entities ’ interest in and commitment to protecting or restoring estuarine water quality

. Discuss ability to fund the coordination of the Management Conference and action plans

- To determine if the non

- F ederal cost share requirement of the statute can be met and if sufficient funding exists to implement the program. After an estuary

is accepted into the NEP , the information in the Governor ’ s nomination is used to in itiate consensus among Management Conference members on priorit ies to be addressed by

the program and to set goals and objectives. (B) Annual Work Plan
Inorder to receive funds, grantees must submit an annual work plan to EPA. The contents of annual w ork plans are specified in 40 CFR Section 35.9045. Work plans should include : 1) a listing and discussion of completed projects and projects planned for the upcoming ye ar , and 2) describe the ty pes of funding and amounts to be su pplied by each funding source. The work plan is reviewed by EPA and also serves as the scope of work for the grant agreement. Annual work plans must be approved by EPA after they

are approved by

the Management Conference so that assistance funding can be awarded. The EPA also uses these work plans to track performance of the 28 programs currently in the NEP.
In formation presented in the work plan is based on the EPA/State Conference Agreement developed for the Management Conference, but may further define the goals and milestone s in6

the overall plan and modif y them based on the success or failure of activities completed in the previous y ears. The information is available from the Conference Agreement. The EPA uses the work plan to determine whether the monies requested in the g rant application serve the seven statutory purposes of the Management Conference, whether they fund activities consistent with the individual program goals, and whether their expenditure is an efficient use of resources. The budget information is also use d to determine whether 50 percent of the funding is provided by non - Federal sources as required by 40 CFR 3 5.9040. (C) Program Evaluation Each NEP must submit a program evaluation (PE) package documenting the CCMP implementation progress. The purpose of the PE is to document progress made in implementing the CCMP; to highlight successes, strengths, and environmental results; and i dentify areas for improvement. The NEPs must submit a PE package to EPA every three y ears. For the y ears covered in the P E cycle, the NEP must submit as part of the PE package: 1) the program management core elements response (standardized measures), 2) a work plan narrative summary , and 3) a budget summary

. A nnual work plans are submitted as a component of the PE and canno t serve in place of the PE be cause annual work plans are limited to the activities of the grant recipient. The PE encompasses the progress made by the overall estuary

program which is a collaboration of many stakeholders each contributing to the implement ation of the CCMP and the restoration and protection of the estuary . Only the NEP can collect this information from stakeholders because, according to purpose (6) of Section 320 of the CWA, the NEP is responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of action s taken to implement the CCMP . In addition, Section 320(h) of the CWA requires grant recipients to report on the progress made under Section 320. The standard recordkeeping requirement for EPA grants is three y ears after the date the recipient submits the final Financial Status Report (FSR).
(D) Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) Reporting The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) require that each agency report annually to Congress on the results of its activities in each f iscal y ear. This Annual Performance Report forms the bridge between the goals and objectives presented in the EPA Strategic Plan and budgeted activities. The Annual Performance Report tracks the progress made toward implementing goals and objectives in any single fiscal y ear. To assist in fulfilling this requirement, the NEPs are asked to report on two items : 1) number of acres of habitat that have been restored within individual study areas including ty

pe of restoration and ty

pe of habitat ; and 2) p riority action items within the CCMP that have been initiated , are ongoing, or have been completed

. NEP reporting on these items helps to measure EPA ’ s overall goal of clean and safe water.7

Use of Improved Information Technology States can access numerous computerized databases to obtain information necessary for the Governor ’ s nomination. These databases are particularly useful in assessing water quality

. The EPA databases available are : Surf Your Watershed, Index of Watershed Indicators (I WI ), Reach File, Water Quality File, Industrial Facilities Discharge File, Permit Compliance Sy stem, BIOS, Complex Effluent Toxicity Information Sy stem, Water Body File, Federal Reporting Data Sy stem, Needs Survey

File, and Grants Information Control Sy stem. The EPA encourages the use of internet resources to the maximum extent in all NEP transactions.
**3. Non Duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria**  **3(a) Non Duplication** The NEP is administered by the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Waters heds (OWOW). The Governor ’ s nomination, the annual work plan, the program evaluation , and GPRA reporting are unique documents addressing particular NEP requirements. No other EPA office or any other F ederal, State, or local agency requests th ese same dat a organized in this particular manner. Although there are no duplicative reporting requirements, some data required for the Governor ’ s nomination may be available from other EPA programs and from other F ederal, State and local agencies. However, no one source contains all the data required for the Governor ’ s nomination. Therefore, the data must be compiled from other sources and organized in a manner detailed in the NEP Nomination G uidance and it must reflect the Governor ’ s priorities and recommendation s. The N omination G uidance also affords the S tates considerable flexibility in style and interpretation. Some of the Federal agencies that compile information relevant to the Governor ’ s nomination are the Department of Interior, National Oceanic and Atmo spheric Administration, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In addition, public interest groups, such as the Nature Conservancy , may possess appropriate information. For example, data on declining fish catches to assess the estuary ’ s commerci al and recreational value can be obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For annual work plans, program evaluations , and GPRA reporting, the NEP Management Conferences are the only source of information. **3(b) Public Notice Requ ired Prior to ICR Submission to OMB**  EPA Published a Federal Register notice on October 8, 2009 (74 FR 51849) t o announce the renewal of this I CR. No comments were received. **3(c) Consultations** The EPA convenes one NEP national meet ing each y ear for the purpose of achieving the mission of the Oceans and Coastal Protection Division. The NEP n ational m eeting is held in Washington, DC and brings together EPA HQ staff, EPA Regional staff, and NEP Directors and staff to discuss policy , bu dget, and implementation issues on coastal watershed protection. The m eeting is an annual opportunity to strengthen partnerships with EPA and the NEP community

.8

EPA also has regulations that address the grants portion of the NEP. These regulations requi re that a Management Conference be convened and that certain program objectives are complete before funds are awarded under S ection 320(g)(3) of the CWA. In addition, EPA has issued the guidance package , “ The National Estuary Program: Final Guidance on th e Contents of a Governor ’ s Nomination. ” **3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection** A Governor ’ s nomination is submitted on a one

- time basis by States that request participation in the NEP , and when the Administrator determines that there is an opportunity for a dditional programs with sufficient resources to support these actions. At this time, EPA does not anticipate soliciting nominations in the information collection period of 2010

- 2012

. Therefore, frequency

of collection is not an issue for the reporting requirements contained in this IC R. Annual work plans are prepared every y ear and are submitted with the grant application. Priorities for Management Conferences can change during a year, and numerous projects are tied to the results of projects completed during the y ear. Therefore, work plans must be developed annually to plan and track the progress. Program Evaluations (PEs) are conducted every three y ears . T hree y ears is adequate time for significant progress to be made imp lementing the CCMP . L onger than three y ears poses the risk of not identifying program challenges in time to take corrective action. Waiting longer than three y ears also puts the Agency at risk of funding programs that are not using EPA funds for appropri ate purposes or achieving expected results. PEs conducted in less than three y ear intervals would be a burden with nominal, if any , increases in useful information. GPRA reporting is performed on an annual cycle, ty pically near the beginning of the new fiscal y ear. Therefore, the NEP GPRA reports need to be provided annually to measure progress toward annual targets. **3(e) General Guidelines** This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6 in that:
 In for mation is not collected more often than quarterly

.  Responses are not required in less than 30 day s.  Respondents are not required to submit more than an original and two copies of the document.
 Itdoes not provide for remuneration of respondents other than contractors or grantees.
 Itdoes not require records to be kept for more than three years.  Itis not in conjunction with a statistical survey

.  Provisions for small businesses and other small entities are appropriate.
 Confidentiality

is protected.
 Itdoes n ot require provision of information in a format other than that which it is9

customarily

maintained.
**3(f) Confidentiality** The Governor ’ s nomination is considered an application and is confidential until a Management Conference is convened. Similarly , ap plications for 320(g)(3) grants are confidential until an offer or award is accepted by the applicant. After acceptance, all documents are public. **3(g) Sensitive Questions** No information of a sensitive nature is requested by this I CR. **4. The Responden**  **ts and the Information Requested 4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes**  Respondents are mainly

State and local government workers. The SI C code applicable to the State and local governments is 9511. **4(b) Information Requested** ( i ) Data items: annual w o rk p lans, program evaluation packages, GPRA Reports

. For annual work plans the standard recordkeeping requirement for EPA grants is three ye ars after the date the recipient submits the final Financial Status Report (FSR). (ii) Respondent Activities: Co mpiling information on activities for each NEP such as restoration projects, outreach material that has been developed, and workshop proceedings. This may include reviewing and transmitting information or searching established databases.
**5. The Informa**  **tion Collected :**  **Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management**  **5(a) Agency Activities**  For annual work plans, program evaluation packages , and GPRA reports, the A gency ty pically will answer respondent questions, hold c onference calls, review and analy ze the submissions, record the submissions, and store the information. **5(b) Collection Methodologies and Management** Annual work plans serve as a scope of work for the grant agreement and are submitted in hard copy form or electronically as part of the grant application. Program evaluation (PE) packages are submitted in hard copy form or electronically . PE submissions may include brochures, pictures, and other public outreach tools that have been developed

. G PRA reports are submitted through an online reporting tool. Quality is checked by

follow

- up conversations with the respondents. For example, with PE , conference calls are set up to go over the PE package and discuss overall progress being made implementi ng the CCMP. The processing technology at this time is standard desktop computer with word processing software. Agency staff will enter and store some data electronically using these formats. GPRA information is also stored in a10

manner that allows publi c access through the EPA website. Some i nformation is not electronic and will be disseminated at conferences and workshops , as appropriate.
**5(c) Small Entity Flexibility** States and local governments are the most likely respondents to this information request. The burden on small organizations is therefore not an issue for the reporting requirements contained in this I CR. **5(d) Collection Schedule** Annual work plans are required each y ear from the 28 NEPs by February 28 th

. Progr am evaluations are scheduled as follows: nine NEPs for FY 2010 , nine NEPs for FY 2011 , and 10 NEPs for FY 2012 . GPRA reports are submitted annually to correspond with the Agency reporting process and are requested to be provided by the end of the fiscal y ear. **6**

. **Estimating The Burden and Cost of the Collection 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden**  The total number of estuary programs in the NEP is limited by the amount of funds appropriated from Congress. Current status and budget projections provide for u p to a total of 28 estuaries in the NEP in FY 2010 . During the term of this I CR, all 28 are operating in the post

CCMP implementation stage which, as discussed in the abstract in section 1(b), concerns oversight and implementation of the CCMP. During the post

- CCMP phase, the NEPs receive significantly

less funding and the annual work plan encompasses less effort than those of the pre

CCMP period. Based on the experience of NEPs to date, we will continue to use the burden hour estimates developed for the 2 002 I CR calculations for the A gency as well as respondents

. (A) Annual Work Plans: It is estimated that 100 burden hours are required for State personnel to prepare and gather information to summarize the previous year ’ s activities, to plan for the curr ent ye ar, and to produce the annual work plan. This is the same value used in the previous review cy cle. I t is expected that Management Conferences will be moving to more improved records keeping and tracking, which should result in a lower burden for th e following cycle. The annual work plan burden to respondent is:
FY 2010 : 28 Annual Work Plans FY 2011 : 28 Annual Work Plans 2,800 h ours/y ear * 3 y ears = 8,400 h ours/3 y ears FY 2012 : 28 Annual Work Plans 28 annual work plans * 100 hours/work plan = 2,800 hours/y ear 2,800 hours/y ear * 3 y ears = **8,400 hours/3 years** (B) Program Evaluations : I t is estimated that 250 burden hours are required for respondents to prepare and gather information to summarize the previous period ’ s activities. Because it is11

expected that the NEPs will be continually reviewing and reassessing priorities, 250 hours is considered to be an upper limit on the effort required to prepare a program evaluation package

. The 2002 I CR value of 250 burden hours will be used for this cy cle. The personnel required to complete this effort is a mix of white collar staff : approximately

55 percent technical, 5 percent s ecretarial , and 40 percent administration or managerial level. The program evaluation burden to the respondent is:
FY 20 10 : 9 Program Evaluations F Y2011: 9 Program Evaluations FY 2012 : 10 Program Evaluations
28 Program Evaluations * 250 hours/report = **7,000 hours**  **/3 years** (C) Government Performance Results Act Reporting: The 2006 I CR value will be used for GPRA reportin g. The 2006 value was derived b ased on discussions with respondents . I t was estimated that an upper limit for burden hours to the NEPs for reporting GPRA information is 60 hours with a lower limit of ten hours for those NEPs with established information management sy stems in place. T he annual average estimate of burden hours for the NEPs to collect and report GPRA information is presently 2 5 hours per report. The GPRA reporting burden to the respondent is:
FY 2010 : 28 GPRA Reports FY 2011 : 28 GP RA Reports FY 2012 : 28 GPRA Reports 28 GPRA Reports * 25 hours/report = 700 hours/y ear 700 hours/y ear * 3 y ears = **2,100 hours/3 years 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs**  6(b)(I ) Estimating L abor Costs (A) Annual Work plans: The post

- CCMP annua l work plan is estimated to take 100 hours of preparation time by

State and local government personnel. For estimates on respondent costs, the US Department of L abor’s occupational employ ment statistics most recent estimates (May 2008) will be applied (see http://stats.bls.gov/oes/2008/may /naics4_999200.htm#b11

- 0000 )

. These wage estimates are calculated with data collected from state and local governments of all sizes, in metropol itan and nonmetropolitan areas in every State and the District of Columbia . The mean hourly wage estimate of $25.88 + a benefits/overhead multiplier of 1.6 ( total $41.41) will be applied for the occupational group of life, phy sical, and social science. T he annual work plan cost to the respondent is:
FY 2010 : 28 Annual Work Plans FY 2011: 28 Annual Work Plans12

FY 2012: 28 Annual Work Plans 28 Annual Work Plans * 100 hours/workplan = 2,800 hours/year 2,800 * 3 y ears = 8,400 hrs/3 y ears 8,40 0 hrs/3 y ear s * $41.41/hour = **$347,844/3 years** (B) Program Evaluations : I t is estimated that 250 burden hours are required for respondents to prepare and gather information to summarize the previous period ’s activities. Because it is expected that NEPs will be continually reviewing and reassessing priorities, 250 hours is considered to be an upper limit on the effort required to prepare a program evaluation package

. The mean hourly

wage estimate of $25.88 + a benefits/overhead multiplier of 1.6 (total $4 1.41) will be applied for the occupational group of life, phy sical, and social science ( see Annual Work plan cost description above ). The Program Evaluation cost to the respondent is: FY2010: 9 Program Evaluations FY2011: 9 Program Evaluations FY20 12: 10 Program Evaluations 28 Program Evaluations * 250 hours/report = 7,000 hours/3 y ears 7,000 hours/3 y ears * $41.41/hour = **$ 289,870**  **/3 years** (C) Government Performance Results Act Reporting: Based on discussions with respondents, it is estimated that an upper limit for burden hours to the NEPs for reporting GPRA information is 60 hours with a lower limit of 10 hours for those programs with established information management sy stems in place. As programs begin to establish tracking sy stems and information management sy stems the burden hours should decrease. Presently , the annual average estimate of burden hours for the NEPs collecting and reporting GPRA information is 2 5 hours per report. The mean hourly

wage estimate of $25.88 + a benefits/overhead multiplier of 1.6 (total $41.41) will be applied for the occupational group of life, phy sical, and social science (see Annual Work plan cost description above). The GPRA annual reporting cost to the respondent is: FY2010: 28 GPRA Reports FY201 1: 28 GPRA Reports FY2012: 28 GPRA Reports 28 GPRA Reports * 25 hours/report = 700 hours/y ear 700 hours/y ear * 3 y ears = 2,100 hours/3 y ears 2,100 hours/3 y ears * $41.41/hour = **$ 86,961**  **/3 years** (6)(b)(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and M aintenance Costs:13

As in the last review cycle, 2006 , no Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs are expected. (6)(b)(iii) Capital/Start

- up Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs: As in the last review cycle, 2006 , no Capital and Operations and Mainte nance Costs are expected. (6)(b)(iv) Annualizing Capital Costs: N/A **6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost** (A) Annual Work plans : Part of the overall burden and cost to the F ederal G overnment is based on the number of annual work plans expected each y e ar as estimated in It em No. 6(a). The burden also is based on the 2002 I CR cy cle

. Inthe 2002 I CR cy cle , reviewing the post

- CCMP annual work plan required 16 hours of F ederal workers ’ time. These estimates were collected from several EPA Regional Offices and also from H eadquarters staff reviewers. Cost estimates are based on the 2010 General Schedule (GS) l ocality p ay for a GS

- 12, Step 1 Federal employ ee for the Washington, DC area (see http://www. opm.gov/oca/10tables/indexGS.asp ). With these estimates applied, the h ourly wage estimate is $35.88 + a benefits/overhead mul tiplier of 1.6 (total $57.41). T he burden and cost to the F ederal G overnment for reviewing annual work plans is summarized below. The Annual Work Plan burden and cost to the Agency is: FY2010: 28 Annual Work Plans FY2011: 28 Annual Work Plans FY2012: 28 Annual Work Plans 28 Work Plans * 16 hours/plan = 448 hours/y ear 448 hours/y ear * 3 y ears = 1,344 hours/ 3 y ears 1,344 hours/ 3 y ears * $57.41/hour = **$ 77,159**  **/3 years** (B) Program Evaluations : Part of the overall burden and cost to the F ederal G overnment is based on the number of program evaluations expected each y ear as estimated in Item No. 6(a). The burden is based on the 20 02 IC R cy cle . In the 2002 IC R cy cle reviewing the program evaluation packages required 40 hours of F ederal workers ’ time. These estimates were collected from several EPA Regional Offices and also from HQ staff reviewers. The 40 hour value is still appl icable for this review cycle. Cost estimates are based on the 2010 General Schedule (GS) l ocality p ay for a GS

- 12, Step 1 Federal employ ee for the Washington, DC area (see http://www.opm.gov/oca/ 10tables/indexGS.asp ). With these estimates applied, the h ourly wage estimate is $35.88 + a benefits/overhead multiplier of 1.6 (total $57.41). The burden and cost to the F ederal G overnment for reviewing program evaluation packages is summarized below. The Program Evaluation burden and cost to the Agency is:14

FY2010: 9 Program Evaluations FY2011: 9 Program Evaluations FY2012: 10 Program Evaluations 28 Program Evaluations * 40 hours/report = 1,120 h ours/3 y ears 1,120 hours/3 y ears * $57.41/hour = **$ 64,299**  **/3 years** (C) Government Performance Results Act Reporting: Part of the overall burden and cost to the F ederal G overnment is based on the number of GPRA reports expected each y ear as estimated in Item No. 6(a). Based on H eadquarters experience appr oximately

8 hours of F ederal workers time is required to review a GPRA report. Cost estimates are based on the 2010 General Schedule (GS) l ocality p ay for a GS

- 12, Step 1 Federal employ ee for the Washington, DC area (see http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/indexGS.asp ). With these estimates applied, the h ourly wage estimate is $35.88 + a benefits/overhead multiplier of 1.6 (total $57.41). The burden and cost to the Federal Government for reviewing GPRA reports is summarized below. The GPRA burden and cost to the Agency is: FY2010: 28 GPRA Reports FY2011: 28 GPRA Reports FY2012: 28 GPRA Reports 28 GPRA Reports * 8 hours/report = 224 hours/y ear 224 hours/y ear * 3 y ears = 672 hours/3 y ears 672 hours/3 y ears * $57.41/hour = **$ 38,580**  **/3 years 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs**  The total universe of respondents is 28, as every NEP is required to submit annual work plans, program evaluation packages , and GPRA reports over this three y ear cycle. Total Burden to Respondent : Annual Work plans 8,400 hrs/3 y ears Program Evaluations 7,000 hrs/3 y ears G PRA Reports 2, 100 hrs/3 y ears TOTAL 1 7 , 500 hr s/3 y ears **Annualized 5,833**  **hours/year** Total Cost to Respondent : Annual Work plans $347,844/3 y ears Program Evaluations $289,870 /3 y ears G PRA Reports $ 86,961 /3 y ears TOTAL $ 724,675/3 y ears15

**Annualized $**  **241,558 /year**  Total Burden for Agency : A nnual Work plans 1,344 hours/3 y ears Program Evaluations 1,120 hours/3 y ears GPRA Reports 672 hours/3 y ears TOTAL 3,136 hours/3 y ears **Annualized 1,045 hours/year**  Total Cost to Agency : Annual Work plans $ 77,159/3 y ears Program Evaluations $ 64,299/3 y ears GPRA Reports $ 38,580/3 y ears TOTAL $ 18 0 , 038/3 y ears **Annualized $60,**  **013 /year**  **6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables** (I) Respondent Tally Total Burden: **5,833 h**  **ou rs/year**  Total Cost: **$241,558/year** (ii) The Agency

Tally Total Burden: **1,045 hours/y ear**  Total Cost: **$60,013/year** (iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom L ine: I t is not anticipated that there will be a significant variation (>25%) for the burden or cost to either respondents or Agency over this I CR cy cle. **6(f) Reasons for Change in Burd en**  There have been no changes in burden since the last I CR cy cle. **6(g) Burden Statement** The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 100 hours per response for Annual Work pl ans, 250 hours per response for program evaluations , and 2 5 hours per response for GPRA reporting . B urden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose , or provide information to or for a Feder al agency . This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and sy stems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing an d providing information; adjust the existing way s to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of infor mation; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it display s a curre ntly valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for E PA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.16

To comment on the Agency 's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including th e use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this I CR under Docket I D No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2006

- 0369 , which is available for on - line viewing at www.regulations.gov or in person at th e Water Docket in the EPA Docket Cent er (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334 , 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. The telepho ne number for the Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566

- 2426). An electronic version of the public docket is available at www. regulations.gov . Use Regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, a ccess the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically . Once in the sy stem, select “ search, ” then key in the docket I D number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket I D No

. ( EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2006

- 0369 ) and OMB control number 20 40

- 0138 in any correspondence.
B. COL LECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS This section is not applicable because no statistical procedures are employed for the data collection.