Supporting Statement ICR for the Application _Final for Submission 07 02 2012_

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST
for the Application for National Roster of Conflict
Resolution and Collaboration Professionals
Control Number 3320-0008, Expiring 08/31/2012

July 2, 2012

Table of Contents
A. Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2
B. Justification ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Need and Authority for Collection ........................................................................................................................ 2
1a. Background: National ECCR Roster ............................................................................................................... 2
1b. Background: National ECCR Roster Application Information Collection ...................................................... 2
1c. Entry Criteria ................................................................................................................................................... 3
1d. The Application Form ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1e. Development and Need for the National ECCR Roster.................................................................................... 3
2. Use of the Information ........................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Use of Automated, Electronic, Mechanical, or Other Technological Collection Techniques ................................ 6
4. Nonduplication ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
5. Minimizing Collection of Information Impacts on Small Businesses .................................................................... 6
6. Consequences to Federal Program or Policy Activities if Collection is Not Conducted ....................................... 6
7. Special Circumstances ........................................................................................................................................... 6
8. Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB and Consultations ...................................................... 7
9. Provision of Gift or Payment to Respondents ........................................................................................................ 8
10. Confidentiality ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
11. Sensitive Questions .............................................................................................................................................. 8
12. Estimated Total Annual Time Burden to Respondents ........................................................................................ 9
12a. Respondent Time Burden Estimates ............................................................................................................... 9
12b. Valuation of Respondent Time Burden ........................................................................................................ 10
13. Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents ....................................................................................... 10
14. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Government .................................................................................... 11
15. Reasons for Any Program Changes/Adjustments .............................................................................................. 11
16. Reasons for Burden Changes/Adjustments ........................................................................................................ 12
17. Tabulation and Publication of Information ........................................................................................................ 12
Appendix A. Statutory Authority Authorizing the Collection of Information ............................................................. 14
Appendix B. Burden and Cost Tables.......................................................................................................................... 19

1|Page

A. Abstract
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (the U.S. Institute) desires to
continue collecting information from environmental conflict resolution neutral professionals
who desire to become members of the National Roster of Environmental Collaboration and
Conflict Resolution Professionals (Roster). The Roster is a resource from which those
involved in environmental and natural resource conflicts and challenges can locate and may
select providers of neutral services. Responses to the collection of information (the
application) are voluntary but required to obtain a benefit: listing on the National
Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution (ECCR) Roster.
B. Justification
1. Need and Authority for Collection
1a. Background: National ECCR Roster
The U.S. Institute was created in 1998 by the Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution
Act (P.L. 105-156). It is a federal program established by the U. S. Congress to assist parties
in resolving environmental, natural resource, and public lands conflicts, including issues
pertaining to transportation and energy. The U.S. Institute is part of the Morris K. Udall and
Steward L. Udall Foundation, an independent federal agency of the Executive Branch, and is
overseen by a board of trustees appointed by the President.
The U.S. Institute was created to assist the Federal Government in implementing Section 101
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4331) by providing
assessment, mediation, training, and other related services to resolve environmental conflicts
involving federal agencies. The U.S. Institute accomplishes most of its work by partnering
or contracting with, or referrals to, experienced practitioners. By statutory mandate, the U.S.
Institute works with conflict resolution providers within the geographic area of the conflict
whenever practicable (20 U.S.C. Sec. 5605, P.L. 105-156.)
The U.S. Institute serves as an impartial, non-partisan institution providing professional
expertise, services, and resources to all parties involved in such disputes, regardless of who
initiates or pays for assistance. It helps parties determine whether collaborative problem
solving is appropriate for specific environmental conflicts, how and when to bring all the
parties to the table, and whether a third-party facilitator or mediator might be helpful in
assisting the parties in their efforts to reach consensus or to resolve the conflict. In addition,
the U.S. Institute can also assist parties in selecting an appropriate neutral through its Roster.
1b. Background: National ECCR Roster Application Information Collection
The application for the Roster is being used pursuant to OMB Control No. 3320-0008,
clearance approved October 16, 2009, and scheduled to expire August 31, 2012.

2|Page

The information collected in the application for the Roster is the basis for an online
searchable database, used to locate appropriate practitioners by matching desired
characteristics with the information in the application. The Roster first became operational in
February 2000 with 60 members and currently includes more than 300 members from 41
states, the District of Columbia, and two Canadian provinces. They represent a broad crosssection of professional backgrounds and case experience. Each member is asked to document
experience that meets the Roster entry criteria, and experience as a neutral in some or all of
the following: mediation, facilitation, consensus building, process design, conflict
assessment, system design, neutral evaluation/fact finding, superfund allocation, and/or
regulatory negotiation. The application information for each Roster member, in the format of
a Practitioner Profile, is directly available online and also available through the U.S. Institute
to those requesting referral services.
1c. Entry Criteria
The specific entry criteria and applicable definitions are available from the U.S. Institute’s
web site: www.ecr.gov. Generally stated, the entry criteria require that:
Applicants have 200 hours of experience serving as the principal or co-principal thirdparty neutral for a collaborative or conflict resolution process intended to assist the
parties to achieve a common goal or agreement in one or more environmental, natural
resource, and/or public lands issues. Applicants must demonstrate abilities that go
beyond simply working with parties to produce constructive dialogue. Roster members
must be able to help parties solve a problem or resolve a conflict.
The qualifying cases must have been completed in the past ten years.
The 200 hours of experience must be represented by at least two but no more than 10
environmental cases of 20 hours or more in duration.
1d. The Application Form
The application can be viewed online at the U.S. Institute’s Web site at
http://roster.ecr.gov/reference/documents/2012DRAFTRosterApplication.pdf.
A hard copy sample application may also be obtained from the U.S. Institute for those
without Web access. (Contact: Gail Brooks, Sr. Associate for Programs and Communication,
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, 130 South Scott Ave., Tucson, Arizona
85701. Fax: 520-670-5530. Phone: 520-901-8532. E-mail: [email protected]).
1e. Development and Need for the National ECCR Roster
The Roster was developed with the support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), based on a 1997 study concerning the potential of a national Roster of qualified
practitioners.
To develop the project, the EPA and the U.S. Institute brought together a work group
consisting of EPA dispute resolution professionals and contracting officers, state dispute

3|Page

resolution officials, private dispute resolution practitioners and academics. Informed in part
by ideas from the individuals in this group, the EPA and the U.S. Institute proposed Roster
entry qualifications and a draft application, which were published in the Federal Register in
November 1998 (63 FR 64699-64713). The entry criteria and application were finalized
following comments received in response to the Federal Register notice, outreach through
meetings and newsletter articles, as well as individual communications with professional
associations, state and federal government agencies, dispute resolution firms, individual
practitioners, professional associations of attorneys, and environmental and citizen groups.
In September 1999, with OMB approval, the U.S. Institute began accepting applications.
The Roster was created, and continues to be needed, for several reasons. The use of ECCR in
the environmental and public policy arena has grown markedly over the last two decades. In
this context, ECCR processes now include techniques ranging from conflict prevention, such
as consensus building and facilitation of public policy dialogues, to specific dispute
resolution through assisted negotiations and mediation. The number of ECCR practitioners
has grown as the field has gained prominence.
An essential step in any dispute resolution process occurs when parties select a practitioner.
Parties making the selection rightfully expect that the practitioner will be qualified to provide
the service sought and has experience and style well matched to the nature of the issues and
to the parties. The Roster is designed to provide a source of well qualified ECCR
professionals available for selection by interested agencies and other stakeholders. The
Roster advances the interests of the growing field of dispute resolution, reflects the evolving
standards of best practice, and helps direct the expenditure of public funds for quality
services.
The U.S. Institute’s enabling legislation directs the Institute to work with practitioners
located near the conflict whenever practical. Consistent with this mandate, the U.S. Institute
must be able to identify appropriate, experienced ECCR professionals in an efficient manner.
The National Roster of ECCR Practitioners is essential for the proper performance of the
U.S. Institute’s goals, including resolving federal environmental disputes, improving the
ability of federal agencies and other interested parties to engage in ECCR effectively, and
promoting collaborative problem-solving and consensus building.
Finally, the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADR Act) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 571 et seq.)
authorizes the federal government to contract with dispute resolution professionals (e.g.,
facilitators or mediators) to assist it and other parties to disputes in reaching an agreement,
settlement, or consensus. The ADR Act authorizes the government to take steps to make
identifying and contracting with neutrals easier (cf. 5 U.S.C. 573(c)).
The goal of the Roster is to improve access to qualified environmental collaboration and
conflict resolution professionals for the U.S. Institute and others sponsoring or engaging in
ECCR processes. The Roster expedites the identification of appropriate professionals,
shortens the time needed to complete contracting documents, and helps refer parties to
practitioners, particularly practitioners in the locale of the dispute.

4|Page

The Roster provides users with detailed Practitioner Profiles, derived directly from
information contained in the application, to be used as a first step in the process of selecting
an appropriate neutral. The application form provides the basis for the Practitioner Profile, to
which the online search categories are connected and allows easy access and review of
information for online searchers and referral requestors. In addition, the use of a form to
collect specific information regarding the practitioner’s experience standardizes the
responses and applicant information. Use of a standard form allows U.S. Institute personnel
to review applications for eligibility more quickly and fairly than if the information were
submitted in a nonstandard format.

2. Use of the Information
Each application is submitted to the U.S. Institute electronically from the Web-based
application system. Each application is reviewed by the U.S. Institute’s Roster coordinator,
with final approval by the U.S. Institute’s D.C. Office Director, for compliance with the entry
criteria. The applicant is contacted where application information needs clarifying or to assist
the applicant in submitting the application. All applicants whose application information
meets the entry criteria are so informed. Each new Roster member is sent a copy of his or her
application/Practitioner Profile. Each member’s information then becomes available as part
of the online searchable database. Applicants who do not meet the criteria are informed and
encouraged to apply again when they have gained the necessary experience.
The U.S. Institute uses the Roster (specifically the information collected in the application)
as a resource when making referrals to those searching for neutral ECCR professionals with
specific experience, backgrounds, or expertise (external referrals). The U.S. Institute also
uses the Roster as a resource when locating appropriate ECCR neutral professionals with
whom to partner/sub-contract for projects in which the U.S. Institute is involved (internal
referrals).
The online Roster search system, which was launched in 2000, originally enabled select
government employees to access Roster member Profiles. The EPA Conflict Prevention and
Dispute Resolution Center and Regional EPA ADR personnel have had direct access to the
search since February 2000. The administrators of the EPA prime sub-consultant contract
gained direct access in May 2003. The DOI Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute
Resolution (CADR) and several members of the DOI Dispute Resolution Council (IDRC:
ADR personnel from various DOI bureaus) have been searchers since November 2002. Many
Roster members have also become searchers. In October 2004, the Roster became directly
available on the Web to anyone interested in locating ECCR practitioners. In addition, the
U.S. Institute continues to rely on the Roster in order to identify appropriate neutrals for
cases managed by the U.S. Institute and to provide referrals to requestors seeking third-party
practitioners.
Federal agencies are not required to select from the Roster. Professionals not on the Roster
remain fully eligible to serve as ECCR practitioners in disputes involving federal agencies.
Finally, being listed on the Roster does not guarantee additional work for the practitioner.

5|Page

3. Use of Automated, Electronic, Mechanical, or Other Technological Collection
Techniques
The application is available online to any Web user, through a simple user registration
system. Hard copy applications are available from the U.S. Institute by request for those
without access to the Web. An application, upon approval for listing on the Roster, is
converted to the Roster member’s Web-based Profile, which the Roster member can access
and update online.
4. Nonduplication
Related rosters and directories of collaboration and conflict resolution professionals were
reviewed as part of the development for the Roster. None were found to contain the requisite
information on ECCR professionals. Although the EPA operates a national service contract
that manages major cases through a list of experienced providers, it is limited in scope and
membership, and as a consequence it can be burdensome to use to identify neutrals for small
or localized cases. Most other federal agencies have no vehicle or information available to
assist in this important first step to conducting a good dispute resolution process. The Roster
is the only roster of its kind.
5. Minimizing Collection of Information Impacts on Small Businesses
This is not applicable to this ICR.
6. Consequences to Federal Program or Policy Activities if Collection is Not Conducted
or is Conducted Less Frequently
Using the Roster standardized application, which is the means for adding new members and
is the foundation for keeping existing members’ information current, provides an efficient
and effective way to continue, and to increase, easy access to appropriate mediators and
facilitators. It is critical that the U.S. Institute continues to have an up-to-date, efficient, and
equitable means to access appropriate, qualified neutrals with whom to partner/contract in
order to fulfill its statutory requirement to work with practitioners in the locale of the dispute.
In addition, all public users of the system would lose access to a valuable resource were the
application discontinued.
Information for membership on the Roster is collected only once, on the initial application.
Voluntary updating of member information is done online. Roster members are periodically
reminded to update, and are encouraged to do an annual review of data in their profile. Less
frequent updates would deprive Roster users of reasonably current information.
7. Special Circumstances
This information collection does not require respondents to:
 report information to the Agency more often than quarterly,

6|Page





prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days
after receipt of a request,
submit more than an original and two copies of any document, or
retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid or tax
records, for more than three years.

This information collection does not collect information in a manner:
 connected with a statistical survey,
 requiring use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and
approved by OMB,
 that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority
established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data
security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily
impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use or,
 requiring the respondent to submit proprietary, trade secret or other confidential
information unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to
protect the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
8. Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB and Consultations
A Federal Register Notice was published February 27, 2012. It opened a 60-day public
comment period. The notice described in detail the continuing need for the Roster, its use,
and the qualifications for entry. The notice also contained information about how to access a
copy of the proposed application via the U.S. Institute’s website at
http://Roster.ECCR.gov/reference/documents/2012DRAFTRosterApplication.pdf.
On May 11, 2012, a second Federal Register Notice was published to announce the U.S.
Institute’s intention to forward the Roster information collection to OMB. The second notice
opened a 30-day public comment period.
One comment was received in response to the 60-day public comment notice. The comment is
posted below.
From: usacitizen1 usacitizen1 [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:46 AM
To: [email protected]; Patricia Orr; [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: public comment on federal register FW: costs too much - looks like udalls sewed
up permanent govt funding for themselves - shut this down
i think it is time to stop funding this with any taxpaeyr dollars. this agency should be
existeing on private fees and private donations. not the american taxpayers all over this
country. l out of 2 americans lives in poverty these days. we need to stop bludgeoning
these people for tax dollars for agencies that need sunset like this one. i think the udalls

7|Page

tried to get themselves on the govt tit, succeeeded, but its time is up. i think gao should
audit and see where our tax dollars go. high salaries for execs? corruption?
national taxpayers shuld stop funding this agency.
jean public

This comment did not provide any specific feedback on the application redesign or the
burden estimates pertaining to the collection, therefore no changes were made to the
application.
Extensive consultations took place in the initial development of the Roster and the
application. In addition, comments from Roster members have been invited in continuing
communications with them and all publicly disseminated Roster information invites
comments and feedback from applicants and Roster members. In late 2011 and early 2012,
the U.S. Institute convened key Roster users and members for the purpose of reviewing the
management of the Roster and receiving individual input. The application, application
process, and updating process were topics of discussion. The vast majority of comments from
all sources supported the application and processes.
9. Provision of Gift or Payment to Respondents
The collection of information does not provide any payment or gift to respondents.
10. Confidentiality
The information submitted in the information collection (the application) will not be
confidential. No assurances of confidentiality have been provided to respondents. Social
Security numbers, company tax identifiers or other personal or organizational identifiers are
not requested. If such information is required for the user’s contracting purposes, the users
will collect the information themselves as a part of their contracting effort. The application
requests references for two of the qualifying cases. These references, however, are not made
available to Roster searchers and are used only by the U.S. Institute to verify representations
made by applicants. As noted above, Roster members are able to access their own profiles for
viewing and modification. Each profile is password-protected, so members are not able to
alter the contents of any profile other than their own. Roster users with direct electronic
access are able to view and sort information contained on the database (the Roster member
profiles) but not modify any of the information. Data entry and removal to the U.S.
Institute’s electronic systems is restricted to U.S. Institute personnel and Roster members.
Other than the information on the application form, the only other information that is
maintained is data regarding referral and selection of Roster members.
11. Sensitive Questions
The only data collected that could be considered potentially sensitive is the Roster member’s
hourly fee. However, individuals on the original workgroup reported they do not consider
that the hourly fee they would enter onto the application as sensitive information because it is
8|Page

a loaded labor rate, not broken down into salary, benefits, fees, and profit.
12. Estimated Total Annual Time Burden to Respondents
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 purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information and transmitting
information. The customary and usual business practices of locating a resume and references
are not included in the burden estimate because ECCR neutral professionals customarily
provide potential clients with resumes that include education information, employment
history, examples of cases handled, and reference contact information.
The time estimate for the update is based on experience administering the Roster, including
test update comparisons between the current application/profile and the redesigned
application/profile and comments received from existing Roster members. It is expected that
up to 25 practitioners per year will apply for inclusion on the Roster in each of the three
years of the ICR extension. This number is extrapolated from the number of applicants per
year since the application ICR approval. The estimated number of annual updates is based on
experience administering the Roster, which indicates that some Roster members update
more, some less. There are currently 310 Roster members, and it is anticipated that all
existing respondents/Roster members will update their information in the first year, with 100
members updating their information in each of the next two years.
12a. Respondent Time Burden Estimates
First year:
New applicants/respondents:
Estimated number of new respondents
Frequency of response
Estimated time per one-time, initial response
Estimated total time burden

25 respondents
1
2.5 hours
62.5 hours (2.5 hours x 25 respondents)

Existing Respondent (Roster members) Updates
Estimated number of existing respondent updates
Frequency of response
Estimated time
Estimated total time burden

310 respondents
1
1.5 hours
465 hours (1.5 hours x 310 respondents)

Subsequent two years:
New applicants/respondents:
Estimated number of new respondents
Frequency of response
Estimated time per one-time, initial response

25 respondents
1
2.5 hours

9|Page

Estimated total time burden

62.5 hours (2.5 hours x 25 respondents)

Existing Respondent (Roster members) Updates
Estimated number of existing respondent updates
Frequency of response
Estimated time
Estimated total time burden

100 respondents
1
0.25 hour
25 hours (0.25 hour x 100 respondents)

Estimated Average Annual Respondents over Three Years: 195 (new: 25/yr x 3) + (existing:
(310 + 100 + 100)/3)) (see ROCIS ICR tables)
Estimated Total Annual Time Burden:
First Year

527.5 hours
62.5 hours for 25 new applicants/respondents
465 hours for 310 existing respondent (Roster member) updates

Subsequent Two Years

87.5 hours per year
62.5 hours for 25 new applicants/respondents
25 hours for 100 existing respondent (Roster member) updates
234.15 hrs (527.5 (first year) + 87.5 (second year) + 87.5 (third
year)/3) (see ROCIS ICR tables)

Average Annual Time
Burden

12b. Valuation of Respondent Time Burden
The valuation of time burden is based on $47.21 per hour in accordance with the September
2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics reports for valuing total compensation (civilian workers
category of “professionals and related occupations”) rather than estimated contractor rate.
Individual Respondent Burden Over Three-year Life of ICR
Three-year total for each new applicant/respondent: 2.5 hrs initial
application + 0.25 hr update + 0.25 hr update = 3.0 hours
Annualized average for each new applicant/respondent
Three-year total for each existing/updating respondent: 1.5 hrs
initial update + 0.25 hr update + 0.25 hr update = 2.0 hours
Annualized average for each existing/updating respondent

$141.63
$47.21 per year
$94.42
$32.47 per year

For additional information, see Appendix B: Burden and Cost Tables.
13. Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents
There are no capital or start-up costs. Existing respondents will use the same computer
equipment to access the application for updates as was used to submit their application. New
respondents can access an application using an existing business computer. A hard copy

10 | P a g e

application can be requested by phone or mail and can be submitted through the mail, if the
applicant has no access to computer equipment or Internet service.
14. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Government
The estimated annualized cost to the Federal government totals $54,177 (see Appendix B:
Burden and Cost Tables). The time and cost burden is based on the U.S. Institute’s
experience in developing and administering the application/information collection for the
Roster since August 1999. Additionally, based on user feedback, the U.S. Institute’s Roster
Web-based operations (Roster online search system) will be revised and updated during the
first year of the information collection to make it a more user-friendly, easily searchable tool
for the public, with additional visualization and mapping capability so that searchers can
more easily find practitioners in their geographic location. Thus, computer programming
time and costs are projected for the first year, but are minimal for subsequent years.
15. Reasons for Any Program Changes/Adjustments
Roster users have indicated that they really value the U.S. Institute Roster, and the U.S.
Institute is committed to support and increase its usefulness to both Roster members and
searchers on an ongoing basis. The U.S. Institute undertook a revision of the Roster
application to improve the current system and address identified challenges with the present
system. The goals of the revision are (1) to modernize the software and improve the Roster
search function, (2) to make the application process more streamlined for Roster applicants
and (3) to update the content of Roster profiles to increase the utility of referral information
for searchers. Additional details provided in Table 3 in Appendix B.
The proposed revisions in the Roster data gathering include:
1.

Qualification Criteria: The current qualifying criteria for the Roster is the requirement
for 200 hours of experience as a neutral lead or co-lead in an agreement-focused process
on an environmental issue. The criteria has not been changed but has been refined
slightly as follows:
Old language:
neutral third-party to assist parties in the prevention, management and resolution of environmental
or natural resource conflicts or challenges.
New language
third-party neutral for a collaborative or conflict resolution process intended to assist the parties
to achieve a common goal or agreement.

The reasoning behind this change is to preserve the essential qualifications of the Roster
that make it unique and useful – experience as a neutral in a complex situation where the
parties need to go beyond information exchange interactions – while also allowing credit
to applicants for more facilitative work on complex multi-party cases.

11 | P a g e

2. Letters of reference: New applicants to the Roster will be required to submit two letters
of reference from participants in each of their qualifying cases. It was felt that greater
verification of successful completion of the qualifying case work was needed to maintain
high standards. Existing Roster members will be “grandfathered into” the system.
3. Separation of Application from Profile: The revised Roster application allows for
information to be collected in two steps. The applicants can submit their qualifying
information and experience as part of the membership screening step, and subsequently
add full profile information if they are accepted to the Roster.
4. Profile Data: Roster members have made a number of comments over the years about
how the five cases allowed in the current profile are very limiting in terms of showcasing
their work. In an effort to address this limitation, a new format was developed for Roster
member profiles. The new format is more comprehensive and easier to update. It will
also be possible for Roster members to insert a resume and photo in their profile if they
so choose. The new profile format will allow Roster members to highlight particular
areas of emphasis. For existing Roster members, there will be a transition period in which
the data from their existing profile is migrated into the new system, requiring less time
and burden to update their information into the new format. Only revised profile
elements will need to be added by existing members.
16. Reasons for Burden Changes/Adjustments
The changes in burden estimates are explained in Table 3, Appendix B.
17. Tabulation and Publication of Information
This is not applicable.

12 | P a g e

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Statutory Authority Authorizing the Collection of Information
Appendix B. Burden and Cost Tables

13 | P a g e

Appendix A. Statutory Authority Authorizing the Collection of Information
[DOCID: f:publ156.105]
[[Page 8]]
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION ACT OF 1998
[[Page 112 STAT. 9]]
Public Law 105-156
105th Congress
An Act

To amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native American
Public Policy Act of 1992 to establish the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to
conduct environmental conflict resolution and training, and for other purposes. <>
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
<> assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT <> TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 4 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native
American Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5602) is amended-(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) as paragraphs (5), (9), (7), and (8), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) the term `environmental dispute' means a dispute or conflict relating to the environment, public
lands, or naturalresources;'';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) the following:
``(6) the term `Institute' means the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
established pursuant to section 7(a)(1)(D);'';
(4) in paragraph (7) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(5) in paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(6) in paragraph (9) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--(A) by striking ``fund'' and inserting ``Trust
Fund''; and (B) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a period.
SEC. 3. BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
Section 5(b) of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native
American Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5603(b)) is amended-(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) of the second sentence, by striking ``twelve'' and inserting
``thirteen''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:

14 | P a g e

[[Page 112 STAT. 10]]
``(7) The chairperson of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, who shall serve as a
nonvoting, ex officio member and shall not be eligible to serve as chairperson.''.
SEC. 4. PURPOSE.
Section 6 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native
American Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5604) is amended-(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``an Environmental Conflict Resolution'' and inserting ``Environmental
Conflict Resolution and Training'';
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) establish as part of the Foundation the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution to assist the Federal Government in implementing section 101 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331) by providing assessment, mediation, and other
related services to resolve environmental disputes involving agencies and instrumentalities
of the United States; and
``(9) complement the direction established by the President in Executive Order No. 12988 (61 Fed. Reg.
4729; relating to civil justice reform).''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY.
Section 7(a) of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native
American Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5605(a)) is amended-(1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Institute for environmental conflict resolution.-``(i) In general.--The Foundation shall-``(I) establish the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution as part of
the Foundation; and
``(II) identify and conduct such programs, activities, and services as the Foundation
determines appropriate to permit the Foundation to provide assessment, mediation,
training, and other related services to resolve environmental disputes.
``(ii) Geographic proximity of conflict resolution provision.--In providing assessment,
mediation, training, and other related services under clause (i)(II) to resolve
environmental disputes, the Foundation shall consider, to the maximum extent
practicable, conflict resolution providers within the geographic proximity of the
conflict.''; and
(2) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``and Training '' after ``Conflict Resolution''.
SEC. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND.
(a) Redesignation.--Sections 10 and 11 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5608, 5609) are redesignated
as sections 12 and 13 of the Act, respectively.
[[Page 112 STAT. 11]]
(b) Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.--The Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) (as amended by
subsection (a)) is amended by inserting after section 9 the following:
``SEC. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION <>
FUND.

15 | P a g e

``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of the United States an Environmental Dispute
Resolution Fund to be administered by the Foundation. The Fund shall consist of amounts
appropriated to the Fund under section 13(b) and amounts paid into the Fund under section 11.
``(b) Expenditures.--The Foundation shall expend from the Fund such sums as the Board determines are
necessary to establish and operate the Institute, including such amounts as are necessary for salaries,
administration, the provision of mediation and other services, and such other expenses as the Board
determines are necessary.
``(c) Distinction From Trust Fund.--The Fund shall be maintained separately from the Trust Fund
established under section 8.
``(d) Investment of Amounts.-``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in the
judgment of the SECCRetary, required to meet current withdrawals.
``(2) Interest-bearing obligations.--Investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the
United States.
``(3) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of investments under paragraph (1), obligations may
be acquired-``(A) on original issue at the issue price; or
``(B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price.
``(4) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the
Treasury at the market price.
``(5) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations
held in the Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.''.
SEC. 7. USE OF THE INSTITUTE BY A FEDERAL AGENCY.
The Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Policy
Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) (as amended by section 6) is amended by inserting after section 10 the
following:
``SEC. 11. USE OF THE INSTITUTE BY A FEDERAL <>
AGENCY.
``(a) Authorization.--A Federal agency may use the Foundation and the Institute to provide assessment,
mediation, or other related services in connection with a dispute or conflict related to the environment,
public lands, or natural resources.
``(b) Payment.-``(1) In general.--A Federal agency may enter into a contract and expend funds to obtain the services of
the Institute.
``(2) Payment into environmental dispute resolution fund.—A payment from an executive agency on a
contract entered into under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the Environmental Dispute Resolution
Fund established under section 10.
``(c) Notification and Concurrence.-[[Page 112 STAT. 12]]
``(1) Notification.--An agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall notify the chairperson
of the President's Council on Environmental Quality when using the Foundation or the Institute to
provide the services described in subsection (a).
``(2) Notification descriptions.--In a matter involving two or more agencies or instrumentalities of the
Federal Government, notification under paragraph (1) shall include a written description of-``(A) the issues and parties involved;
``(B) prior efforts, if any, undertaken by the agency to resolve or address the issue or issues;
``(C) all Federal agencies or instrumentalities with a direct interest or involvement in the matter
and a statement that all Federal agencies or instrumentalities agree to dispute resolution; and

16 | P a g e

``(D) other relevant information.
``(3) Concurrence.-``(A) In general.--In a matter that involves two or more agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal
Government (including branches or divisions of a single agency or instrumentality), the
agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal Government shall obtain the concurrence of the
chairperson of the President's Council on Environmental Quality before using the
Foundation or Institute to provide the services described in subsection (a).
``(B) Indication of concurrence or nonconcurrence.-- The chairperson of the President's Council on
Environmental Quality shall indicate concurrence or conconcurrence under subparagraph (A)
not later than 20 days after receiving notice under paragraph (2).
``(d) Exceptions.-``(1) Legal issues and enforcement.-``(A) In general.--A dispute or conflict involving agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal
Government (including branches or divisions of a single agency or instrumentality) that
concern purely legal issues or matters, interpretation or determination of law, or enforcement
of law by one agency against another agency shall not be submitted to the Foundation or
Institute.
``(B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a dispute or conflict concerning-``(i) agency implementation of a program or project;
``(ii) a matter involving two or more agencies with parallel authority requiring facilitation and
coordination of the various Government agencies; or
``(iii) a nonlegal policy or decisionmaking matter that involves two or more agencies that are
jointly operating a project.
``(2) Other mandated mechanisms or avenues.--A dispute or conflict involving agencies or
instrumentalities of the Federal Government (including branches or divisions of a single agency
or instrumentality) for which Congress by law has mandated another dispute resolution
mechanism or avenue to address or resolve shall not be submitted to the Foundation or Institute.''.
[[Page 112 STAT. 13]]
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 13 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental
and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 (as redesignated by section 6(a)) is amended-(1) by striking ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fund'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Trust Fund.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the Trust Fund''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund established under section 10-``(1) $4,250,000 for fiscal year 1998, of which-``(A) $3,000,000 shall be for capitalization; and
``(B) $1,250,000 shall be for operation costs; and
``(2) $1,250,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2002 for operation costs.''.
SEC. 9. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) The second sentence of section 8(a) of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5606) is amended-(1) by striking ``fund'' and inserting ``Trust Fund''; and
(2) by striking ``section 11'' and inserting ``section 13(a)''.
(b) Sections 7(a)(6), 8(b), and 9(a) of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5605(a)(6), 5606(b), and
5607(a)) are each amended by striking ``Fund'' and inserting ``Trust Fund'' each place it appears.
Approved February 11, 1998.

17 | P a g e

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3042 (S. 399):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 143 (1997):
Nov. 13, considered and passed
House.
Vol. 144 (1998):
Jan. 29, considered and passed
Senate.

18 | P a g e

Appendix B. Burden and Cost Tables


Table 1. Respondent Burden and Cost



Table 2. Agency Burden and Cost



Table 3. Summary of Changes in Burden and Cost Estimates

19 | P a g e

Table 1. Respondent Burden and Cost
Hours Per Respondent
Collection Activity
Review instruction
information, fill out
application form (new
respondents)
Updates (existing
respondents)

First
Year

Second
Year

Third
Year

Number of Respondents
First
Year

Second
Year

Cost per
hour ($)

Third
Year

Total Labor Costs
First
Year

Second
Year

Third
Year

2.5

2.5

2.5

25

25

25

$47.21

$2,951

$2,951

$2,951

1.5

0.25

0.25

310

100

100

$47.21

$21,953

$1,180

$1,180

$24,904

$4,131

$4,131

Each year total:
3-year aggregate:

$33,166

Annualized average:

$11,055

Note: Respondents do not incur capital or start-up costs.

Table 2. Agency Burden and Cost

Collection Activity

Cost for
salary/
benefits,
per hour
($)

Approximate number of
hours to perform
First
Year

Second
Year

Cost* estimate ($)

Third
Year

First
Year

Second
Year

Cost
subtotals
($)

Total Costs
($)

Third
Year

Prepare Federal Register Notices and Supplemental
Information for information collection renewal request
Roster coordinator

$43

10

0

0

$430

0

0

$430

Senior staff

$75

2

0

0

$150

0

0

$150
$580

Prepare ICR submission for information collection renewal
request
Roster coordinator

$43

20

0

0

$860

0

0

$860

Senior staff

$75

2

0

0

$150

0

0

$150
$1,010

Systems Operations (includes development, testing,
implementation and maintenance of online system based on
information collected via new application)
Roster coordinator
Senior staff
Contract programmer

$43
$75
$150

200
40
294

200
20
20

80
20
20

$8,600
$3,000
$44,100

$8,600
$1,500
$3,000

$3,440
$1,500
$3,000

$20,640
$6,000
$50,100

Senior in-house programmer

$75

80

20

20

$6,000

$1,500

$1,500

$9,000

In-house programming assistant

$43

60

20

20

$2,580

$860

$860

$4,300
$90,040

Application processing and application/Profile
communications (e.g., review and evaluate applications,
communicate with applicants and Roster members regarding
applications/Profile updates)
Roster coordinator

$43

600

400

300

$25,800

$17,200

$12,900

$55,900

Senior staff

$75

80

60

60

$6,000

$4,500

$4,500

$15,000
$70,900

3-year aggregate:
Annualized:

$162,530
$54,177

21 | P a g e

Table 3. Summary of Changes in Burden and Cost Estimates
(See also Section 15)
Change

Clarification of Change

Number of Respondents:
Decrease in new responders from
30 to 25

Decrease in number of new responders is in response to the observation in the last three years that the
number of new respondents has decreased slightly over time.

Increase in existing responders in
first year from 125 to 310

Increase in existing responders in first year due to (1) increase in existing responders over the years since
the last ICR and (2) it is anticipated that all existing respondents will update their information in the first
year with the improved application/profile information.

Decrease in existing responders in
subsequent two years from 125 to
100

Decrease in existing responders in subsequent two years since it is anticipated that all existing responders
will have updated their applications/profiles in the first year and that new updates will be due to the
addition of new information.

Change in the number of
questions asked: 2 additional
questions asked in the 2012
application

Two additional questions were added in the 2012 application in Section I, part A: Contract information –
“Is your organization a GSA-schedule provider” and “Are you a member of the Native Dispute Resolution
Network”. Both of the questions contain simple “Yes” or “No” check boxes, so they are simple and quick
to answer. We anticipate that the added burden of those two questions is minimal.

Change in estimated time for new
responders to complete
application: No change

The application and profile have been streamlined from the previous version. The application and the
profile sections are separated in the new application, with the addition of more check boxes and clearer
instructions in each section, and the option for new responders to fill out the profile initially or wait until
they are accepted to the Roster.

Decrease in estimated time for
existing responders to complete
application: Decrease by 1 hour

Existing respondent data will be automatically propagated into the new system, requiring less time and
burden to update their information into the new format. Only revised profile elements will need to be
added by existing members, to create a complete profile that achieves the goal of providing current data
and information about their experience.

22 | P a g e

Change

Clarification of Change

Respondent burden and cost:
Decrease in overall burden to new
responders by $408/year

Decrease in overall burden cost to new respondents due to an estimate of five fewer new respondents/year
based on experience in the past three years.

Increase in burden cost for
existing respondents in the first
year by $20,554

One time increase in burden to existing respondents in the first year due to application redesign and the
anticipation that all existing respondents (310) will update their materials in the first year.

Decrease in burden cost to
existing responders in the second
and third years by $219/year

Decrease in burden cost to existing respondents in the second and third years due to estimate of 25 fewer
existing responders updating their materials since it is anticipated they will all have updated their materials
in the first year.

Increase in 3-year aggregate of
respondent burden and cost by
$18,892

Increase in 3-year aggregate due to increased first-year burden cost of all existing responders updating their
materials due to the application redesign.

Increase in annualized aggregate
respondent burden and cost by
$6,297

Increase in annualized aggregate respondent burden due to increased first-year burden cost of all existing
responders updating their materials due to the application redesign.

23 | P a g e