SS-A_LBBP Expression of Interest 20151015

Supporting Statement A

Tribal Expression of Interest to the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations

OMB Control Number 1093-0NEW

Terms of Clearance: None.

General Instructions

A completed Supporting Statement A must accompany each request for approval of a collection of information. The Supporting Statement must be prepared in the format described below, and must contain the information specified below. If an item is not applicable, provide a brief explanation. When the question “Does this ICR contain surveys, censuses, or employ statistical methods?” is checked "Yes," then a Supporting Statement B must be completed. OMB reserves the right to require the submission of additional information with respect to any request for approval.

Specific Instructions

Justification

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

The Secretary of the Interior established the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations (“the Program”) to implement the land consolidation provisions of the Cobell Settlement Agreement. The Settlement provided for a $1.9 billion Trust Land Consolidation Fund to consolidate fractional land interests across Indian Country.

The Program allows interested individual owners to receive payments for voluntarily selling their land. All lands sold will immediately be held in trust for the tribe with jurisdiction. There are approximately 150 unique reservations that have fractional interests. Tribal leadership, participation, and facilitation are crucial to the success of the Program. The Department of the Interior looks forward to working cooperatively with tribal leaders and individual landowners to reduce the number of fractional interests through voluntary land sales.

The Program is carrying out its work in accordance with the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291, §101).  The Act requires that "[t]he Secretary shall consult with Indian tribes to identify fractional interests within the respective jurisdictions of the Indian tribes for purchase in a manner that is consistent with the priorities of the Secretary". Moreover, the obligation to engage in meaningful consultations with Federally-recognized tribes is rooted in the United States Constitution and Federal treaties, statutes, executive orders and policies. Federal agencies are required to consult on actions that will have substantial, direct effect or implications for tribal nations, including regulations, rulemakings, policy, guidance, legislative proposals, grant formula changes, and operational activities.

In light of the Program’s duty to consult with tribes, we are planning this information collection request to obtain information from the remaining eligible tribal governments regarding their interest in implementing the Program at their locations and their readiness to do so. The Program will evaluate the expressions of interest provided by tribal governments, among other factors, as it develops its next implementation schedule.

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 that we seek to collect will be used by the Program as one consideration among others to evaluate and determine our next implementation schedule. The Program will consider implementation at locations/reservations associated with tribes that express interest in the Program.

The Official Tribal Authorization is needed to assess tribal interest and ensure that an eligible tribal government officially approves of program implementation. We are seeking, among other information, an official acknowledgement of the given tribe’s interest. Such an official acknowledgement typically comes in the form of a tribal resolution from the tribal government but it may take other forms (e.g., an official letter from the tribal government), depending on how a given tribal government conducts its business. It is reasonable for the Program to ask tribes to express their interest in the program because we want to identify locations where our limited resources have a greater probability of being effectively spent.

We are also asking interested tribal governments to describe their readiness for program implementation in a Description of Readiness. Indications of tribal readiness may be a factor in determining where on our implementation schedule a tribe should fall (e.g., earlier or later, based on apparent readiness for implementation). With respect to the timing of program implementation, it would be logical for the Program to take the position that a tribe that demonstrates greater readiness than another tribe may appear earlier on our schedule.

Below is a list of the readiness examples that the Instructions for Submitting a Tribal Expression of Interest to the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations asks a tribe to describe or address, if applicable. Following each item is an explanation of why the Program thinks it should be included in our information collection request. Information provided by a tribe in response to this request would be considered by the Program in evaluating the given tribe’s readiness for Program implementation.

1. The activities the tribe is prepared to perform, and in the best position to carry out (e.g., educating tribal members on the Program and explaining what the tribe aims to achieve through land consolidation).

   • If a tribe is able to articulate land consolidation activities that it is prepared to perform then that would demonstrate that it has engaged in significant thought and discussion regarding Program implementation. Land consolidation activities are typically significant and the Program believes that a tribe would likely propose to perform such activities only if it was ready, willing, and able to perform them.

2. The tribe’s specific plans and goals for consolidated lands (e.g., economic development, additional housing, infrastructure improvements, habitat protection, or cultural preservation).

   • If a tribe is able to describe its specific plans and goals for consolidated land that would suggest that they have given significant thought and discussion to Program implementation. To have such a vision for consolidated lands indicates that the tribe is very familiar with the lands it wishes to acquire and it is motivated to do so. All of that is an indication of readiness for Program implementation. Furthermore, a tribe with clear plans and goals for consolidated lands may be one that the Program would be justified in scheduling earlier than an interested tribe that has not yet indicated such a vision.

3. If the tribe completes the Program’s Priority Ranking Worksheet, which describes land characteristics and other features by which a tribe could organize its priorities (e.g., prioritize by degree of fractionation, or prioritize specific tracts or areas based on the tribe’s plans and goals for consolidated lands), then it should be attached to the tribe’s submitted Description of Readiness.

   • If a tribe completes the Program’s Priority Ranking Worksheet that would indicate that it has engaged in significant thought and discussion regarding its land consolidation priorities. All other things being equal, a tribe that has considered its land consolidation priorities would be more ready for Program implementation than one that has not. Additionally, the information provided would likely help the Program prepare for implementation activities with the given tribe (e.g., researching priority tracts, etc.).

4. Past performance of or involvement in land consolidation activities (e.g., the tribe has a land consolidation program and staff or the tribe purchases fractional interests at probate).

   • A tribe that can demonstrate that it has previously performed or been involved in land consolidation activities may, depending on its past experience, be considered as more ready for Program implementation than one that has not. For example, if a given tribe already has a land consolidation program then that would indicate that it is experienced with land consolidation activities and, thus, likely to be more ready than a tribe without such experience.

5. Whether the tribe has land and realty staff, and/or staff experienced with geographic information system (GIS) data.

   • A tribe that has land and realty staff, and/or staff experienced with GIS data may, depending on its description of its staff, be considered as more ready for Program implementation than one that has not. When the Program works with a tribe on land consolidation activities we often are dealing with land/realty and GIS data issues, thus, having such experienced staff will facilitate more efficient and potentially earlier implementation efforts.

6. Whether and how the tribe has already conducted outreach to inform its members of land consolidation opportunities and activities.

   • A tribe that has already conducted land consolidation outreach is demonstrably interested in Program implementation. By making its members aware of land consolidation opportunities and activities, the given tribe would be considered more ready for Program implementation than a tribe who has not done such outreach (all other things being equal). Outreach is a significant and critical early and on-going process in Program implementation.

7. Any issues or complications of which the tribe is aware that may need to be addressed before Program implementation (e.g., tracts targeted for consolidation by the tribe have environmental issues, or are located outside reservation boundaries).

   • This information may influence the Program to place the tribe later on our implementation schedule to allow sufficient time for the reported issue(s) and/or complication(s) to be addressed.

8. Any timing considerations that could impact implementation (e.g., the tribe prefers that no offers be sent during tribal cultural events, or until other events, projects, or activities are completed).

   • This information may influence where on our implementation schedule the Program should place the tribe to accommodate the timing consideration reported by the given tribe.

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.

Tribal governments will be encouraged to send their expressions of interest to the Program’s email address – [email protected]. To verify that an email submission was authentic and came from the indicated tribal government, the Program plans to call the given tribal government to confirm their submission and interest in the Program. Alternatively or additionally, expressions of interest may be sent to the Program via a trackable delivery method (e.g., USPS Priority Mail, FedEx, UPS).

The Program will encourage tribal governments to respond to the information collection via email because we think that it will be an easier, less costly, more efficient, and quicker way to respond. However, should a tribal government not wish to avail itself of the email response option, the Program will accept hard-copy responses.

Offering respondents the opportunity to respond via email is in accord with the GPEA requirement to allow respondents to submit information to the federal government electronically. The other GPEA requirements are not applicable to our information collection request.

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.

Some of the remaining eligible tribes have previously expressed interest in program implementation. To avoid duplication, the Program will contact those tribes to specify whether they would need to provide any additional information to respond to this information collection request. Previous expressions of interest may have been more limited than the information the Program is currently seeking. For example, a previous tribal expression of interest may have simply been an email or phone call indicating that the given tribe was interested in the Program. To develop an implementation schedule, the Program believes that we should seek more information from an interested tribal government beyond a simple indication of interest (e.g., indications of tribal readiness).

Beyond those tribes that previously expressed interest in program implementation, the information we are seeking to collect is not available to us. Accordingly, beyond the exception discussed above, there is not similar information already available that we could use or modify for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.

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

There will be no impact on small businesses. This information collection is directed at tribal governments only.

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 the Program does not conduct this information collection then it will not know which of the remaining eligible tribal governments are interested in program implementation. That lack of knowledge could lead to numerous significant negative outcomes associated with the development of the Program’s implementation schedule. For example, the Program’s next schedule may include tribes that are not interested in the program and exclude those that are interested. That could lead to Program resources being spent preparing for and conducting implementation at a location that is not interested in program implementation, which could be an inefficient use of our limited resources, including the roughly seven years (of ten total) remaining for Program implementation.

Furthermore, we would be ignoring our duty to consult with tribes regarding the Program and might damage relations between the federal government and sovereign tribal nations.

Another potential negative outcome is that by being unaware of tribal readiness for program implementation, we may schedule a “less ready” tribe earlier than a “more ready” tribe, which could lead to greater costs for the Program and the tribes involved.

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.

This item is not applicable to the Program’s information collection request. None of the above conditions would be present in the Program’s information collection request.

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.

Due to the time constraints with the Program, this collection is requesting an approval as an Emergency ICR and no Federal Register Notice was published. If emergency approval is received, the Program will immediately initiate the normal ICR process and will publish the standard Federal Register Notices.

A Program Tribal Relations Advisor made telephone calls to ten tribal representatives on September 8, 2015; four tribal representatives were reached, all of whom agreed to provide feedback on the Program’s planned information collection request. One tribal organization (the Indian Land Tenure Foundation (“ILTF”)) representative was also contacted on September 16, 2015, to request its feedback on the Program’s planned information collection request to tribal governments.

Draft Instructions for Submitting a Tribal Expression of Interest to the Land Buy Back Program for Tribal Nation (Instructions) (i.e., the information collection request instrument) and a draft of the Priority Ranking Worksheet were provided to the four tribal representatives and the ILTF representative. Comments on the documents were received from four tribal representatives and ILTF.

Below is a summary of the comments received from tribal and tribal organization representatives. Following each comment, the Program indicates whether, based on the comment, it revised its Instructions. If the comment did not lead to a change in the Instructions, the Program provides an explanation for why that is the case.

1. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho - Attorney General

• Overall, the draft instructions are “well thought out and understandable.”

  • No changes suggested or required based on this comment.

• Should clarify whether Program will consider implementation at a location if no expression of interest received from tribe.

  • No changes made based on this comment because the Program believes it would be inappropriate to do so in the Instructions document. Also, while the Program likely would consider implementation at a location if no expression of interest was received from the tribe, the Program has not yet had thorough discussions on the topic and it may be something that is addressed on a case by case basis.

• The Priority Ranking Worksheet and the Instructions also factor Tribal government priorities for consolidated tracts (e.g., housing, government operations, etc.). Recommend indicating that tribal priorities are a factor that the government should consider when scheduling a location for consolidation activities.

  • No changes made based on this comment because of a misunderstanding on the use of the Priority Tracking Worksheet. Tribal priorities are not a factor that the Program considers when scheduling a location for consolidation activities, but the tribal priorities will be used in determining how the government will work with the tribe during the consolidation process.

• Should contact tribes that have already expressed interest but are not yet scheduled to confirm what has been received and what is still needed; alternatively, should instruct all tribes not yet scheduled to resubmit expressions of interest as directed in the new instructions.

  • The Program revised the Instructions based on this comment.

• Should ask tribes to indicate their preferred level of participation (cooperative agreement, less formal support/participation without Program funding, or no participation).

  • No changes made based on this comment because the Program believes it is not necessary to address this issue in the Instructions document.

• Can more than one tribal Point of Contact (POC) be identified, or can a POC be identified by title only (not a specific person)?

  • The Program revised the Instructions based on this comment.

• Priority Ranking Worksheet is “helpful and easy to use.”

  • No changes required based on this comment.

• Burden Estimate:

  • Official Tribal Authorization:

    • Realty staff - 5 minutes

    • Legal staff - 10 minutes

    • Tribal Council - 5 minutes

• Description of Readiness:

  • Realty staff - 60-90 minutes

  • Finance staff - 20 minutes

  • Legal staff - 60-90 minutes

  • Tribal Council - 30 minutes

2. Yurok Tribe - Realty Officer

• For tribes that have not already expressed interest in participation, “the instructions are clear.”

  • No changes suggested or required based on this comment.

• An official tribal authorization was not previously required for those tribes which elected to submit a letter of interest rather than a cooperative agreement application. This initiative will make it appear to tribal leadership as though tribal reps did not follow the instructions and their previous submissions were incomplete; the Program should make it clear in the instructions that the tribal authorization requirement (at the expression of interest stage) is new.

  • A change was made based on this comment. The second paragraph of the Submission Requirements section of the Instructions now begins “Based on lessons learned…” This was done to make it clear that these requirements are new.

• Should not require tribes to request release of landowner and tract info pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2216(e) in the tribal authorization; it may not be appropriate/advisable to release this information to the tribe in every situation.

  • A change was made based on this comment. This clause in the Official Tribal Authorization is now optional.

• The Priority Ranking Worksheet “is clearly written.”

  • No changes suggested or required based on this comment.

• Burden Estimate:

  • Official Tribal Authorization

    • Realty Staff – 1-2 hours

    • Tribal Council – 6 hours

• Description of Readiness

  • Realty Staff – 24 hours

  • GIS Manager – 24 hours

3. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan - Planning Director

• The instructions and Priority Ranking Worksheet “seem to be fairly straight forward.”

  • No changes suggested or required based on this comment.

• Should reiterate the purpose of the Program for those who may not yet fully understand its goals and objectives.”

  • A new opening paragraph was added to the Instructions document based on this comment.

• Should include the option of “verbal dialogue” if questions arise during Tribal Council discussions.

  • No change was made based on this comment because the Program prefers to receive written expressions of interest from tribes. However, the Instructions document now includes a name, phone number, and email address of a Program staff person that a tribe may contact if they have questions.

4. Nisqually Indian Tribe - Planning and Economic Development Director

   • The instructions “provide a good snapshot of where a tribe might be in terms of priorities for the buyback program, and will help Interior target those tribes who are in need and truly ready to participate.”

     • No changes suggested or required based on this comment.

   • “I did not find any items that needed to be changed in my opinion.”

     • No changes suggested or required based on this comment.

   • Burden Estimate:

     • Official Tribal Authorization

       • Tribal Planning Director – 1 hour

       • Tribal Attorney – 1 hour

       • Tribal Financial Services Staff – ½ hour

• Description of Readiness

  • Tribal Planning Director – 3 hours

  • Tribal Attorney – 1 hour

  • Tribal Financial Services Staff – 1 hour

5. Indian Land Tenure Foundation President

• Should change all references to “tribe” in letter and instructions to “Tribal Nation.”

  • No changes made based on this comment as the Program does not think it necessary.

• Should send the letter to the tribes which have not yet expressed interest in participating only; a different letter should be sent to the tribes that already expressed interest acknowledging receipt of previous submission, but indicating more info may be needed.

  • No changes made because this comment refers to a letter that is outside the scope of the information collection request.

• Should send a different letter to tribal leaders at the 42 locations already scheduled for implementation.

  • No changes made because this comment refers to a letter that is outside the scope of the information collection request.

• Does not understand “degree of ownership overlap between locations” and “geographic diversity,” and does not recall seeing them listed before among the factors considered by Program in scheduling locations for implementation. Should provide more explanation.

  • No changes made based on this comment because the factors listed have been listed consistently in numerous Program reports and documents over time.

• Should add the following bullet to the examples of community benefits of consolidation in the letter: “Most importantly, xxx individual Indian landowners received $yyyy for their ownership interests which will stay permanently in tribal ownership and jurisdiction.”

  • No changes made because this comment refers to a letter that is outside the scope of the information collection request.

• How will tribes know if the Program considers their previous expressions of interest to be complete and up to date?

  • The Program revised the Instructions based on this comment.

• Should instruct tribes which have already expressed interest, but which are not yet scheduled, to contact the Program (provide a name and phone number) to discuss the status of their previous submittal.

  • No changes made based on this comment because the Program does not wish to take that approach on this issue. However, based on other comments received, the Instructions were revised to clarify how tribes that have already expressed interest but are not yet scheduled should respond if they are still interested.

• The first indication of readiness may be whether the tribe has mapped or received maps through the Program.

  • No changes suggested or required based on this comment.

• Readiness examples d and e are likely not relevant/applicable to the remaining locations.

  • No changes made based on this comment because the Program does not know it to be true.

• Comment regarding two suggested tribal resolution clauses on tracts with improvements: “While these two declarative clauses deal with use to some extent, neither address the ownership records of the permanent structures. I assume someone – Tribal Nation or BIA has thought this through.”

  • No changes made based on this comment as the Program does not think it relevant to the information collection request.

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

This item is not applicable to the Program’s information collection request. The Program is not going to provide any payment or gift to respondents for providing the requested information.

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

As indicated in our request for information, the Program is seeking information from tribal governments solely for our own use as we consider and develop our next implementation schedule. The Program will not share the information collected outside of the Department of the Interior.

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.

This item is not applicable to the Program’s information collection request. The Program’s information request does not include questions that are of a sensitive nature.

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.

The Program is seeking the following collections of information from respondents: 1) an official tribal government authorization expressing interest in the Program and approving implementation of the Program at the given reservation, and 2) a narrative description of the tribal government’s readiness for Program implementation, which may also include a Priority Ranking Worksheet, at the tribe’s discretion. The Program recognizes that a number of tribal governments have already registered their interest, but have not yet been scheduled for implementation. Those tribes which previously submitted letters of interest, but did not include an official tribal authorization or a description of readiness, would be invited to supplement their initial submissions with the authorization and narrative.

Therefore, burden hours vary depending on whether or not a tribal government has previously submitted a letter of interest and if they choose to supplement a previous submission. The Program anticipates submissions from no more than 50 tribes.

The Program is primarily basing its respondent burden estimate on the burden estimate provided by the Yurok Tribe (indicated above in item 8). Additionally, our respondent burden estimate also considers input received from the Kootenai and Nisqually tribes (also noted above in item 8), as well as the Program’s own estimates, especially with respect to the Priority Ranking Worksheet (since none of the tribes we consulted with provided a burden estimate for the Worksheet). We are relying on the Yurok Tribe’s burden estimate because it anticipates a greater amount of time required for a response than the estimates provided by the other two tribes and we think that is the more prudent approach at this stage. If and when the Program receives additional feedback regarding the amount of time that is required for responding to this information collection request, then we will consider revising our burden estimates when the ICR goes through the full renewal process.

Based on feedback received and the Program’s own expectations, we anticipate that the response work would typically be performed by realty staff, legal staff, and tribal council members. The hourly rates for a Real Estate Broker, and Attorney were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_531300.htm. For tribal council members were correlated to Top Executives from State Governments and the hourly rate was obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999200.htm#11-0000

The benefits multipliers for these labor categories are calculated to be 1.4 for non-government and 1.5 for government, based upon information provided in BLS news release USDL: 15-1132, June 10, 2015 at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

The total burden hours for this information collection request is estimated at 3,700 hours with a dollar equivalent of $252,879. The burden hours and dollar equivalent is described in the table below:

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.

This item is not applicable to the Program’s information collection request because respondents will not have start-up or maintenance costs nor will they have collection fees to obtain the requested information.

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 table below lists the activities that the government will engage in with respect to this information collection request. The table indicates the number and type of staff (e.g., GS level, contractor, etc.) that are anticipated to be involved in each activity. These estimates were determined based on a similar previous experience (i.e., the Program’s 2013/2014 open solicitation) and our expectations for the processing and review of the information we hope to collect as a result of the current effort.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) 2015 base plus locality hourly pay rate for a GS-14 Step 5 and Senior Executive Service personnel in the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA was obtained from: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/

The benefits multiplier for this labor category was calculated to be 1.5. As a result the estimated annual cost to the Federal government is $35,008 as outlined in the table below:

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

This is a new information collection request necessitating the burden identified.

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.

The information collected will not be published.

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.

This item is not applicable to the Program’s information collection request because we will display the OMB Control Number expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection.

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

We have no exceptions to the certification items.

Page 16 of 16