Document ID: EPA-HQ-OGC-2007-0982-0009
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-04-27T04:00Z

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 OMB SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

	Title:  Environmental and Economic Effects of Environmental Conflict
Resolution at EPA (OMB Control Number 2090-NEW; EPA ICR No. 2306.01).

	This is a request for new Information Collection Request (ICR)
authority.  This ICR will enable EPA’s Conflict Prevention and
Resolution Center (CPRC) to evaluate the environmental and economic
effects of agreements reached through the Agency’s Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) process compared to decisions that might have been
achieved through other decision-making processes (e.g., litigation). 
The ICR will collect information from participants in cases involving
Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR).

	ECR is third-party assisted conflict resolution and collaborative
problem solving in the context of environmental, public lands, or
natural resources issues or conflicts, including matters related to
energy, transportation, and land use.  All aspects of ECR are voluntary
for participants.

	Information will be collected from representatives of organizations
that participated in ECR decision-making processes in a range of
environmental cases.  Examples include ECR Superfund cases involving
both National Priority List (NPL) sites and non-NPL sites and the
Combined Sewer Overflow policy dialogue.  For purposes of comparison,
information will also be collected from representatives of organizations
that were involved in non-ECR decision making processes that otherwise
have similar characteristics to the ECR cases (e.g., similar
environmental issues, similar geography).  The proposed ICR will allow
EPA to use web-based questionnaires as an essential component of an
ongoing and systematic cross-media evaluation of CPRC’s ADR program. 
EPA may use a subset of the questions for parties who were not
participants in the ECR process but who can provide useful information
on the effectiveness of the results of the decisions reached.

	The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 524(h),
(ADR Act) recognizes that research into ADR techniques is important to
continued development of the field by authorizing research that does not
identify the specific parties or issues in controversy.  In a joint
memorandum issued in November 2005, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) directed agencies,
among other things, to focus on accountable performance and achievement
in ECR.  OMB and CEQ’s direction is consistent with EPA’s
long-standing view that systematic evaluation of the results of ADR
cases is critical to the success of the Agency’s ADR program.   In FY
2008, EPA’s Deputy Administrator also directed all Agency components
to strengthen program evaluation and integrate this important tool into
planning, budgeting, and accountability systems.  Most recently,
President Obama has directed all federal agencies to look closely at
their operations to identify areas where there may be opportunities to
achieve efficiencies in terms of savings or costs that can be avoided.

2.  Need for/Use of the Collection

	This ICR will enable the CPRC to evaluate the environmental and
economic effects of agreements reached through the Agency’s ADR
process compared to decisions that might have been achieved through
other decision-making processes (e.g., litigation).  This information
collection will also help satisfy the November 2005 memorandum from OMB
and CEQ that directed agencies, among other things, to focus on
accountable performance and achievement in ECR.  Data collected will be
used to analyze and assess EPA’s ECR procedures, to ensure program
activities are executed and managed in a cost-effective manner, and
provide information for agency managers and staff to use when deciding
whether to use ECR, consistent with the principles of the Government
Performance Results Act and the President’s reform agenda.  

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	3(a).  EPA has no other known source for this information about the
environmental and economic results of ECR, which it has been directed by
OMB and CEQ to assess.  Moreover, this ICR supplements other information
collected about ECR.  For example, the US Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution (USIECR) holds a current ICR to collect information
about ECR processes (OMB Number 3320-0004 expiring 12/31/2011).  Among
other things, the USIECR ICR obtains information from participants who
were seeking agreement in an ECR process.  The information collected
under the USIECR ICR soon after an ECR process concludes includes
participant views of: the performance of the neutral facilitating the
process, elements and quality of the process, the status, nature and
quality of the agreement, how any unresolved issues will be addressed,
comparison of participation in the ECR process to an alternative
individual action selected by the participant, capacity of party to
engage in the ECR process, relationships with other parties involved in
the process, and satisfaction.  This proposed ICR will complement
information collected through the USIECR ICR by quantitatively
addressing the environmental and economic effects from implementation of
the ECR agreement and the associated costs, after implementation of the
agreement has begun.  In addition, this ICR provides for the collection
of information from non-ECR cases, which strengthens the claims that can
be made about the results from a systematic evaluation perspective.

	3(b).  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB.  The
first notification of the Agency’s request for the approval of this
ICR was published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2008.  EPA
received four comments in response to the notification – one from the
U.S. Department of Interior, one from the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution, one from the State of Oregon, and one
anonymous comment.  Three commenters expressed strong support for this
collection.  Their specific comments include the following:

The collection as proposed will allow EPA to respond to the directive in
OMB/CEQ’s policy memorandum on ECR to focus on accountable performance
and achievement in ECR.

Parties who are considering an ECR process for a particular matter will
have data from this evaluation that will assist them in making an
effective decision about whether to use ECR.

In the spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act, the
collection will provide governmental and private sector decision makers
with valuable cost-benefit information regarding ECR programs.

This collection has been subject to an intensive development process and
has already been successfully piloted.

It is essential to collect the information in the proposed survey
instruments directly from the parties involved in the cases being
evaluated.  They are the most knowledgeable people on these cases in
terms of the environmental issues at stake and their economic impacts.

EPA’s request to allow for flexibility to tailor the questionnaires to
reflect the details of specific cases is reasonable and indeed necessary
to produce a valid collection of information.

The proposed collection will represent a major step forward as the first
systematic collection of environmental and economic impact data for ECR.

The proposed collection is essential to the work of EPA and to the field
of ECR as a whole.

The fourth commenter was anonymous and did not address the substance of
the collection.

	3(c).  Consultations – EPA consulted with USIECR, the Office of
Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution in the Department of the
Interior, and the State of Oregon on the need for systematically
collecting information on the Agency’s ADR program.  CPRC has also
consulted other components of EPA including the Office of General
Counsel, the Office of Environmental Information, the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, and the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance.  Consultations yielding examples of earlier
similar studies conducted using non-EPA resources and the Agency’s own
information collections where an ICR was not required demonstrate
clearly that data collection including a questionnaire for ECR case
participants was the most valuable tool in identifying and analyzing
environmental and economic results. 

	3(d).  Effects of Less Frequent Collection – Information for this ICR
is only collected once from participants.  As a result, there can not be
a less frequent collection of information.

	3(e).  General Guidelines – The information collection is consistent
with the guidelines set forth in 5 CFR 1320.6 of the Paperwork Reduction
Act Guidelines.

	3(f).  Confidentiality – As required by 5 U.S.C. 524(h), the
questionnaires for parties in dispute resolution proceedings covered by
the ADR Act will be carefully designed and administered to ensure that
the identity of the parties and the specific issues in controversy will
remain confidential.  The questionnaires for matters that did not
involve dispute resolution proceedings will allow respondents to claim
that their responses contain Confidential Business Information.  The
Agency will protect questionnaires subject to CBI claims from disclosure
to the extent authorized by 2 C.F.R. Subpart B, Confidentiality of
Business Information.

	3(g).  Sensitive Questions – Sensitive questions are not associated
with the information collection activities performed under Public Law
107-118.

4.  Respondents and Information Requested

	4(a).  Respondents - Respondents under this ICR are the individuals
who, with the assistance of a neutral third party, negotiated the
agreement reached in an ECR case, as well as participants in non-ECR
cases.  They typically represent a wide range of interests, including
various agencies and levels of government, industry, and environmental
advocacy groups.  The number of participants varies considerably but is
usually within the range of two to 20 people per case.  Of all the
potential sources of data, these individuals possess the greatest levels
of knowledge about the specific issues and science related to the case
because of formal training (e.g., biology, engineering, environmental
law), extensive experience working on similar issues, and/or their
intensive involvement in the matter over the course of months or years. 
The nature of the ECR and non-ECR processes is such that participants
must inevitably raise, understand, debate and address important
scientific, technical, and legal issues in the course of reaching an
agreement or decision.

	4(b).  Information Requested – Case participants complete a web-based
survey instrument with questions concerning the environmental effects,
implementation of the agreement or decision including resources
required, relations with other parties to the agreement, reasons for
joining an ECR process or participating in a non-ECR decision making
process, costs of the process, and quality of information held by
parties when making the decision.  Case participants without web access
are provided with a printed copy of the questionnaire.  For many issues
addressed in the questionnaire respondents are asked to make a
comparison to an alternative process and outcome.  It is important to
point out that the utility of the questionnaire depends greatly on the
ability to tailor certain questions (e.g., those related to
environmental effects or the most appropriate alternative process for
the case) to the particular case so that the participants can provide
valid and reliable responses.  Typical draft questionnaires for both ECR
and non-ECR cases are appended as Exhibit 1A and 1B.

5. The Information Collected – Agency Activities, Collection,
Methodology and Information Management

	5(a).  Agency Activities –EPA is responsible to Congress and other
stakeholders to ensure that its resources are being used efficiently and
effectively.  This information will assist EPA in appropriately using
ECR, enabling targeting of ECR processes where they have the strongest
environmental and economic benefits, and responding to a directive in
the joint OMB and CEQ ECR Policy Memorandum that “agency leadership
should recognize and support needed upfront investments in collaborative
processes and conflict resolution and demonstrate those savings in
performance and accountability measures to maintain a budget neutral
environment.”  This collection and the use of data it produces are
thus consistent with President Obama’s direction that all federal
agencies look closely at their operations to identify areas where there
may be opportunities to achieve efficiencies in terms of savings or
costs that can be avoided.

	EPA will collect the information using standardized forms that minimize
the burden on respondents while ensuring consistent information that can
be easily aggregated and accurately reported.  A contractor will
administer the ECR and non-ECR effects questionnaires on behalf of EPA. 
CPRC program staff will supervise the work of the contractor and use the
evaluation to provide advice to on the use of ECR.  CPRC will use this
advice when working with other EPA offices and regions.

	5(b).  Collection Methodology and Management – EPA will collect data
under this ICR using a standard set of forms and instructions that are
designed to simplify and facilitate completion by respondents.  The
questionnaire is administered on the web; a paper form will be available
for any who cannot access the form on the web.  The questionnaire has
been developed and piloted using a small number of EPA cases (less than
10 non-Federal respondents) that did not require an ICR.  In addition,
EPA cooperated with a study involving Oregon state environmental cases
that used a similar questionnaire.  This has facilitated development of
the questionnaire, including statistical testing of its validity and
reliability; provided well-grounded estimates of burden; and offered the
opportunity to conduct post-survey interviews with selected respondents
to assess their views on improvements to the questionnaire and whether
they felt the burden reasonable.  Respondents in these pilots were very
comfortable with the burden.  In addition, response rates were excellent
– 75% and 88% in the Oregon and EPA cases, respectively.

	5(c).  Small Entity Flexibility – This information collection request
is expected to affect small governmental jurisdictions, which are
defined as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts with populations of less than
50,000.  This definition may also include Indian Tribes, in keeping with
the President’s Federal Indian Policy.  	EPA has considered whether to
establish different reporting requirements for small entities and has
determined that: (1) different reporting requirements among recipients
will result in inconsistent data that may lessen the Agency’s ability
to evaluate the ECR program; (2) the burden imposed by this information
collection is relatively small and small entities should not be unduly
burdened by the reporting requirement; and (3) completion of the ECR
effects questionnaire is voluntary and respondents who elect to
participate have determined that the expected benefits of participation
outweigh any burden.

	5(d).  Collection Schedule – The information is collected after an
agreement is reached and after implementation of the agreement has
begun.  Information collection will occur over a three-year period from
approval of this ICR.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 

	6(a).  Estimating respondent burden - A “unit” burden is the burden
incurred by a respondent for performing a specific activity that is not
covered by another ICR.  The estimated burden includes only the
completion of the ECR or non-ECR effects questionnaires.  No other
burdens are imposed on the public.

	6(b).  Estimating respondent costs – EPA has piloted the ECR version
of the questionnaire providing reliable estimates of the time required
to complete the questionnaire.  During the EPA pilot test conducted on
four cases, 24 respondents required an average of 27 minutes (standard
deviation = 10 minutes) to complete the questionnaire.  The non-ECR
version of the questionnaire mirrors the ECR version so the burden
should be very similar.  The hourly rate estimate is a weighted average
based on the number of respondents and the mean hourly wage of
respondents and broken down by all non-federal and federal respondents. 
The mean wage of non-federal respondents is $123.31.  There will be
approximately six non-federal respondents for each Superfund case for an
approximate total of 78 non-federal respondents.  There will be an
estimated additional 50 non-federal respondents for the Combined Sewer
Overflow case.  Information collected under this proposed ICR for
additional cases will be of similar magnitude.  Non-federal respondents
tend to be represented by either environmental engineers or lawyers. 
All federal respondents are anticipated to be federal employees.  The
estimated total number of respondents is 300 for the evaluations that
will be conducted over the next three years.  The estimated annual
burden to respondents is presented in Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 2a – All Non-Federal Respondents

	Annual Burden

Estimated number of respondents (per year)	81

Total burden (hours)	40.5

Unit cost per hour ($)	$123.31

Total annual burden ($)	$4994.00

Exhibit 2b – Federal Respondents

	Annual Burden

Estimated number of respondents (per year)	19

Total burden (hours)	9.5

Unit cost per hour ($)	$89.76

Total annual burden ($)	$852.72

	6(c).  Agency burden and costs - EPA incurs a burden in the process of
requesting, reviewing and processing the information covered by this
ICR.  This burden includes:

	Payments to contractor to administer the questionnaire, manage data and
report on individual cases and on the group of Superfund cases;

	Directing work of the contractor; and

	Reviewing the questionnaire and reports.

	Work on the evaluation will occur over three years.  The estimated
annual burden associated with EPA activities is presented in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3

	Annual Burden

Contractor ($)	$44,859

EPA staff directing work of contractor (hours)	18

EPA staff reviewing the questionnaire and reports (hours)	54

EPA staff total burden (hours)	72

EPA staff unit cost per hour ($)	$89.76

EPA staff total burden ($)	$6,463

Total burden ($) EPA staff and contractor	$51,322

	6(d).  Estimated Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs – The
estimated annual average number of respondents per year for this
information collection is 100 respondents, with the average total number
of responses per year estimated at 100.  As presented in Exhibit 2, the
total average annual burden to respondents is 50 hours per year at a
cost of $5,846.72.

	6(e).  Bottom-line burden hours and costs – Exhibits 2 and 3 provide
the bottom-line burden hours and costs for respondents and EPA,
respectively.  The hours and costs presented in these exhibits represent
the annual burden resulting from this information collection; the total
burden hours and costs for the three-year period covered under this ICR
is estimated to be three times the total hours and costs provided in
each exhibit.

	6(f).  Reasons for Change in Burden – This is a request for new
Information Collection Request (ICR) authority.  This ICR will enable
EPA’s Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center (CPRC) to evaluate the
environmental and economic effects of agreements reached through the
Agency’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process compared to
decisions that might have been achieved through other decision-making
processes (e.g., litigation).  

	6(g).  Burden Statement – The annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 27 minutes per response to the ECR Effects and non-ECR effects
questionnaires.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways 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
information; 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 displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

	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 the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OGC-2007-0982, which is available for public viewing at the EPA
Docket Center (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 holidays.
 The telephone number for the Reading Room and the Docket is (202)
566-1744.  Use EPA’s electronic docket and comment system at 
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" www.regulations.gov , to submit
or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available
electronically.  Once in the system, select “docket search,” then
key in the docket ID 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 ID No.
EPA-HQ-OGC-2007-0982 and OMB Control Number 2090-NEW in any
correspondence.

 Office of Management and Budget and President’s Council on
Environmental Quality, Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution,
November 2005 Available online at
http://nepa.gov/nepa/regs/OMB_CEQ_Joint_Statement.pdf. Last Accessed 6
March 2009.

 Interagency ADR Working Group Steering Committee Protecting the
Confidentiality of Dispute Resolution Proceedings: A Guide for Federal
Workplace ADR Program Administrators, Chapter IV Evaluation of ADR
Programs and Processes, p. 44 (April 2006).

 Office of Management and Budget and President’s Council on
Environmental Quality, Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution,
November 2005 Available online at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/joint-statement.html. Last Accessed 25
September 2008..

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Policy on Alternative Dispute
Resolution (FRL–6923–1), Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 249,
December 27, 2000. Available online at  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/adr/epaadrpolicyfinal.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/adr/epaadrpolicyfinal.pdf . Last Accessed 25
September 2008.

 Memorandum from Marcus Peacock, Deputy Administrator, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Program Evaluation at EPA, March 31,
2008.

 Office of Management and Budget and President’s Council on
Environmental Quality, Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution,
November 2005 Available online at
http://nepa.gov/nepa/regs/OMB_CEQ_Joint_Statement.pdf. Last Accessed 6
March 2009.

 Office of Management and Budget and President’s Council on
Environmental Quality, Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution,
November 2005 Available online at
http://nepa.gov/nepa/regs/OMB_CEQ_Joint_Statement.pdf. Last Accessed 6
March 2009.

 Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2006 National Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates for the United States. Available online at  HYPERLINK
"http://stats.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm"
http://stats.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm . Last Accessed 25
September 2008.