1028-New SS-A Nebert Award 2015-12-14

Supporting Statement A

Doug D. Nebert NSDI Champion of the Year Award

OMB Control Number 1028-NEW

Terms of Clearance: None

Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection.

The authority for the program is listed in Section 6 of Executive Order 12906 of April 11, 1994.

Sec. 6. Partnerships for Data Acquisition. The Secretary, under the auspices of the FGDC, and within 9 months of the date of this order, shall develop ,to the extent permitted by law, strategies for maximizing cooperative participatory efforts with State, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and other nonfederal organizations to share costs and improve efficiencies of acquiring geospatial data consistent with this order. FGDC has legal authority to encourage widespread adoption of common standards and best practices as determined by the committee under:

Executive Order 12906 - http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/direct/orders/20fa.html

Circular A-16 - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a016/a016_rev.html

FGDC is sponsoring the Doug D. Nebert NSDI Champion of the Year Award that honors a respected colleague, technical visionary, and recognized national leader in the establishment of spatial data infrastructures that significantly enhance the understanding of our physical and cultural world and its purpose is to recognize an individual or a team representing Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and (or) local government, academia, or non-profit and professional organization that has developed an outstanding, innovative, and operational tool, application, or service capability used by multiple organizations that furthers the vision of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).

With primary administrative responsibility for the Nebert Award, the FGDC is responsible for managing the Nebert Award web site where nomination information, deadlines and contact information is made available to the public. The FGDC communicates with the public concerning the nomination process and collects the nominations via email. The nominations contain information required select finalists and winners of the Doug D. Nebert NSDI Champion of the Year Award.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection. Be specific. If this collection is a form or a questionnaire, every question needs to be justified.

The information collected will be used to select the recipients of the annual Doug D. Nebert NSDI Champion of the Year Award. Individuals, organizations/ groups can nominate themselves for an award or be nominated by a third party. The nominations are first received by FGDC Office of the Secretariat staff then passed on to the Nebert Nomination Committee (Committee). The Committee is comprised of 4 people that come from FGDC Office of the Secretariat and FGDC member agencies.

Each member of the Committee will review each application to evaluate the merits of the nominees using the criteria stated in the Nebert Award eligibility requirements. Upon completion of the review process, final recommendations will be forwarded to the FGDC Chair for approval.

Nomination packages will include three sections: (A) Cover Sheet, (B) Summary Statement, (C) Supplemental Materials. Detailed information concerning the content and format of the three sections follow.

Section A: Cover Sheet. The name of nominated individual or organization/ group will be used to identify and to confirm the proper name of the individual or organization/ group and to verify. This information is used in publicizing the award and is printed on all official materials related to the awards. Nominators will submit a cover sheet with the specific information listed below.

NOMINEE: Name Title Employer Business Mailing address Business Telephone Business E-mail address NOMINATED BY: Your name Business Mailing address Business Telephone Business E-mail address

NOMINEE (Team): Team Name Team Lead Sponsoring Organization(s) Team Lead Business Mailing address Team Lead Business Telephone Team Lead Business E-mail NOMINATED BY: Your name Business Mailing address Business Telephone Business E-mail address

Section B: Summary Statement. Respondents will prepare a brief written statement in support of the nomination describing the nominee's contributions to the development of an outstanding, innovative, and operational tool, application, or service capability used by multiple organizations that furthers the vision of the NSDI.

For individual nominations, describe achievements in the scientific and technical spatial data infrastructure community, as well as contributions leading to successful practical applications of spatial data infrastructure. Consideration will be given to sustained career achievements or singular contributions of major importance to the field of spatial data infrastructures (SDI).

For group nominations, describe a team, a group of individuals, or part of an organization that has developed an outstanding, innovative, and operational tool, application, or service capability used by multiple organizations that furthers the vision of the NSDI.

The Summary Statement will be restricted to 2 pages.

Section C: Supplementary Materials. Nominations may include up to 10 pages of supplemental information (resume, publications list, letters of endorsement, etc.). Specific individual and team achievements should be peer-reviewed and documented in industry-recognized credible publications.

Nominations will be submitted in Portable Document Format (pdf) via email.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden and specifically how this collection meets GPEA requirements.

Complete nomination packages will be accepted electronically via e-mail.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.

No other Federal agency is authorized to present a similar award recognizing national contributions from government, private and academic sectors. No duplication will occur.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

The collection of information does not have a significant impact on small businesses or other small entities.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

If we cannot collect nominations from non-Federal individuals and organizations, the nominations will be biased by activities and individuals within the Federal sphere of influence. Open nominations empower the FGDC community to determine who should be considered for the award, thereby adding to the prestige and credibility of the award.

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:

* requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

* requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

* requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

* requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;

* in connection with a statistical survey that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;

* requiring the 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 respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, 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.

There are no circumstances that require us to collect the information in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and in response to the PRA statement associated with the collection over the past three years, and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every three years — even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

The 60-day FRN was published 9/9/2015 at Volume 80 FR 54309. We did receive one comment from the public; however, the comment was not directly related to this project but rather a rejection of all government data collection.

The individuals listed below were contacted for editorial suggestions and feedback concerning the clarity of the announcement and approximate length of time it would take to complete the nomination process. The respondents concurred with our estimated burden time for the process to be about 10 hours. We believe that this estimate reflects the time it takes each applicant to prepare the narrative and provide the additional information needed to complete the process.

The respondents to the request for feedback said that they found the nomination process and supporting instructions to be straightforward and did not believe the process and requirements placed undue burden on the respondents. They did not provide significant improvements.

Ms. Jacqueline V. Nolan Library of Congress Email: [email protected] Tel: 202-707-8520 Date of contact: September 29, 2015	Dr. David Coleman, President Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association Professor of Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick Email: [email protected] Tel: +1 506-451-6977 Date of contact: September 24, 2015
Mr. Timothy Johnson Director, Center for Geographic Information and Analysis State of North Carolina Tel: 919-754-6588 Email: [email protected] Date of contact: September 24, 2015	Ms. Lynda Liptrap Branch Chief Federal Geographic Coordination Branch U.S. Census Bureau Tel: 301.763.1058 Email: [email protected] Date of contact: September 24, 2015
Mr. Gary Latzke WiM Program Manager USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center Tel: 608.821.3805 Email: [email protected] Date of contact: September 24, 2015	Ms. Deidre McCarthy, GISP Chief, Cultural Resource GIS Facility National Park Service 202-354-2141    Email: [email protected] Date of contact: September 24, 2015

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

The respondents will not receive payment for their participating in the nomination process. However, the recipients of the award will receive a citation and plaque, which will be presented at an appropriate public forum determined by the FGDC Chair. The name(s) of the recipient(s) will be inscribed on permanent plaques, which are displayed in the office of the FGDC Office of the Secretariat.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

No assurance of confidentiality is given to respondents.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

The nomination process does not require sensitive information. Nominators are specifically instructed not to include social security numbers or any personal contact information in the application.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:

* Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.

* If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.

* Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here.

Based on our experience with other programs we expect to receive less than 10 nominations from individuals from Federal/State/Local governments, academia, or private organizations. The nominations take each applicant approximately 10 hours to complete, totaling 100 burden hours. We estimate that the total dollar value equivalent for annual burden hours of this collection will be $3,781.

Activity	Annual Responses	Estimated Completion Time per Applicant	Total Annual Burden Hours	Dollar Value of Burden Hour Including Benefits	Total Dollar Value of Annual Burden Hours
Complete nomination package
Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools, Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services	5	10 hours	50	$31.39	$1,570
State/Local Gov.	5	10 hours	50	$44.22	$2,211
TOTAL	10		100		$3,781

We estimate the dollar value of the annual burden hours to be $3,781 based on the EMPLOYER COSTS FOR EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION – JUNE 2015 published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf). The particular values utilized are:

• Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools, Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services. Hourly mean wage is $ 31.39.

• State and Local Government. Hourly mean wage is $ 44.22.

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual non-hour cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected in item 12.)

* The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information (including filing fees paid for form processing). Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.

* If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.

* Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

There is no non-hour cost burden to applicants under this collection. There is no fee for application, nor any fees associated with application requirements.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

The total estimated cost to the Federal Government for processing and reviewing proposals and producing the award material as a result of this collection of information is $9,215. This includes hourly wages and benefits. Table 4 below shows Federal staff and grade levels performing various tasks associated with this information collection. We used the Office of Personnel Management Salary Table 2015-GS (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/15Tables/html/DCB.aspx) to determine the hourly wages. The fully loaded rate is determined by multiplying the Hourly Rate in the schedule by 1.5 to cover overhead costs to Federal government.

Position	Grade/Step	Hourly Rate	Annual hrs	Loaded Rate	Total Cost
Deputy Director, FGDC	15/6	$56.81	24	$85.22	$2,045.00
Program Analyst, FGDC	13/10	$45.54	40	$68.31	$2,732.00
Senior Program Advisor, USGS	14/8	$51.06	24	$76.59	$1,838.00
Program Lead, NOAA	14/10	$53.82	24	$80.73	$1,938.00
Admin Assistant	8/1	$18.39	24	$27.59	$662.00
Total Federal Cost					$9,215.00

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments in hour or cost burden.

This is a new collection.

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Notifications of award recipients and copies of the citations presented award recipient are posted to the Nebert Award web site and in the FGDC Annual Report. Typically the Nebert Award will follow this timeline:

• Requests for nominations via email – Late February to early March.

• Deadline for nomination – May 1

• Nomination evaluations and selection – Early to late June

• Review of nominees and citation information – June to July

• Award notification – August-September. If there is a ceremony the day and time depend on venue agreed upon by recipient and FGDC

• Award Announcements, posting of press releases and citations to web –Fall to early winter

• Identification of new committee members – Late winter

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The expiration date will be displayed.

18. Explain each exception to the topics of the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."

There are no exceptions.

60853201

Page 0