1024-0038 Ssa 11-20-2020

Supporting Statement A for

Paperwork Reduction Act Submission

Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government

Historic Preservation Programs, 36 CFR 61

OMB Control Number 1024-0038

Terms of Clearance: None.

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

The National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 300101 et. seq.) (the Act) established the programs and 36 CFR 61 further defined the NPS Historic Preservation Programs (HPP) for which the information collections in this Supporting Statement were created. The programs relating to these information collections have been in operation for at least 20 years.

The Act does not require State, tribal, or local governments to participate in the program. However, those that participate must meet the following requirements and mandates to maintain their eligibility for the program and the associated funding.

• Section 2 of the Act (54 U.S.C. 300101), provides the declaration of policy of the Federal government regarding historic preservation.

• Section 101(b)(2) of the Act (54 U.S.C. 302302), requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to periodically evaluate each State's historic preservation program to determine if it is in compliance with the requirements of the Act.

• Section 101(b) of the Act (54 U.S.C. 302301 et seq.), outlines the specific standards that the States must meet in order to obtain such approval.

• Section 101(c)(1) (54 U.S.C. 302502), requires that each approved State program provide for a mechanism for the certification of local governments.

• Pursuant to Section 101(d) (54 U.S.C. 302701 et seq.), of the Act, federally recognized Indian tribes, after agreement with the NPS, may assume responsibilities specified in Section 101(b)(3) (54 U.S.C. 302303), and therefore use related information collections.

• Section 101(a)(7)(C) (54 U.S.C. 302107(3)) and Section 101(b)(1) (54 U.S.C. 302301), of the Act authorize the Secretary to revise or promulgate regulations implementing these approval and certification processes.

• Section 101(c)(1)(E) (54 U.S.C. 302503(A)(5)), requires that each certified local government (CLG) satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to it under the Act.

• Section 101(b)(3)(A) of the Act (54 U.S.C. 302303 (b)(1)), requires each State to survey for historic resources and maintain an inventory of such properties.

• Sections 101(b)(3)(E), (F), and (I) of the Act (54 U.S.C. 302303(b)(5)-(7)), require participating States to assist Federal agencies in part by reviewing Federal work, undertakings, etc., and to be in compliance with Federal responsibilities under the Act.

• Section 108 of the Act (54 U.S.C. 303101 et seq.), created the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) to support activities that carry out the purposes of the Act.

• Section 101(e)(1) of the Act (54 U.S.C. 302902(a)), requires the Secretary to administer a program of matching grants to the States.

• Sections 101(d) (54 U.S.C. 302701 et seq.) and 101(e) of the Act (54 U.S.C. 302902(a), 302903(a), 302904-302908), direct a program of grants to Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) to carry out their responsibilities under the Act. Each year, Congress directs NPS to use part of the annual appropriation from the HPF for the State and tribal grant programs to carry out their statutory role in the national historic preservation program.

• Section 103(c) (54 U.S.C. 302902(c)(4)), requires that States pass at least 10 percent of their annual grant award through to CLGs.

• Section 102(a)(4) of the Act (54 U.S.C. 302902(b)(1)(B)), gives the Secretary the authority to require reports from grantees.

• Section 101(b) (54 U.S.C. 302301 et seq.), mandates that State staff include qualified historic preservation professionals and describes the responsibilities of each State Historic Preservation Officer.

• Section 102(a) (54 U.S.C. 302902(b)(1)(A)), mandates that no grants to States may be awarded unless the application is in accordance with the State-wide historic preservation plan.

Each State and tribe approved, and local government certified under these requirements is eligible to receive grant assistance. 36 CFR 61 details the processes for approval of State and tribal programs, the certification of local governments, and the monitoring and evaluation of State and CLG programs in a manner that ensures the propriety of the uses of this Federal assistance. NPS intends the provisions of 36 CFR 61 to meet minimum standards and requirements that the Act established without imposing additional or unwarranted burdens on States, tribes, or CLGs. None of these information collections are unfunded mandates. Congress appropriates monies annually from the HPF for distribution to the States and territories and tribes, and States pass through HPF grant funds to CLGs.

Legal Authorities:

• 54 U.S.C. 300101 et. seq., the National Historic Preservation Act

• 36 CFR 61, Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs

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 NPS, other Federal agencies, State, Tribal, and local governments, public and private organizations, and individuals use the data from this information collection to evaluate if State, tribal, and local governments meet minimum standards and requirements for participation in the National Historic Preservation Program and related grant programs. The decision by a State, tribal, or local government to seek approval, certification, or funding is voluntary, but completing the information collections is required to obtain the benefits of participation.

The NPS uses the information collected in accordance with an apportionment formula to determine the amount that each State and territory is to receive from the HPF appropriation. We also use the information in reports on the grant program’s accomplishments, budget documents, and other NPS and Department of the Interior documents.

State, tribal, and local government partners use the information collected to: (1) demonstrate their eligibility for grant support, (2) document their compliance with statutorily-mandated responsibilities for historic preservation offices, (3) plan for and report on their historic preservation performance, and (4) demonstrate their contributions to the Federal-State-tribal-local national historic preservation partnership. Information related to program capability and to program achievements in the identification, evaluation, registration, and protection of irreplaceable historic and prehistoric resources is used by the general public and by decision makers at all levels of government to assess the success of historic preservation programs everywhere.

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.

Due to limitations of online access in some states and tribal territories information continues to be submitted in hard copy because of the requirement for signatures. The Historic Preservation Fund State Grants program and Tribal Grants Program are committed to the government-wide “E-Grants,” “Grants.gov,” and similar initiatives. When such technology is available, individual, HPF State and Tribal Grants programs will convert hard copy requirements to electronically accessible solutions submitting forms using electronic signatures. States/CLGs can report CLG achievements via a range of electronic platforms (e.g., Google forms, online data entry).

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.

The information collected is unique to the legal requirements for participation in the Historic Preservation Program and not available from any other source.

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

This information collection does not impact small businesses or other small entities. Information is only collected from States, tribes, and local governments. The information collected is limited to the minimum information necessary to establish eligibility and to assess the effect of the programs.

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.

This information is required to determine if State, tribal, and local governments meet the specific requirements and standards established in the Act. The information also ensures the proper conduct of Federal assistance activities.

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 special circumstances.

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.

On September 25, 2020, the National Park Service published in the Federal Register (85 FR 60488) a notice of our intent to request that OMB renew approval for this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 days, ending on November 24, 2020. No comments were received.

The NPS consults with all States several times a year, either directly at regularly scheduled meetings of SHPOs or through the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, which represents the interests of the States. These consultations serve as opportunities for the States to provide suggestions and comments on the availability of data, information requirements, the clarity of instructions, etc. Similar consultations have taken place with tribes and local governments both individually and through their national organizations (the National Association of THPOs and National Alliance of Preservation Commissions and SHPOs).

In addition to our Federal Register Notice, we requested feedback from a small sample of each unique reporting role (Table 8.1). We used an average of the responses to generate our burden estimates in Question 12 (below). Note: no State Program Reviews have occurred in the last 3 years, therefore we did not make new inquiries about the burdens associated with that information collection requirement.

Table 8.1 Individuals Contacted Outside the Agency

State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) Contacted

Oklahoma, Kansas, South Carolina, District of Columbia, Oregon, Missouri, Colorado, Maryland

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) Contacted

Blackfeet Tribe, Blue Lake Rancheria; Confederate Tribes of Colville, Forest County; Potawatomi, Lower Sioux; Menominee, Red Cliff; Suquamish, Nashville, TN

Certified Local Government (CLG) Staff Contacted

Nashville, TN; Houston, TX; Montgomery County, MD; Florence, CO; Spokane, WA

State Coordinator for Certified Local Government (CLG) Staff Contacted

Kansas, Indiana, South Carolina, Oregon, Missouri, Maryland

Of all the individuals contacted by email, we received a total of seven (7) responses to our request for feedback. The entities included: State Historic Preservation Office (n=3), Certified Local Government (n=1), Certified Local Government coordinator (1), state coordinator (1) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (1). The individuals consulted provided editorial suggestions and feedback concerning the clarity and approximate length of time it would take to complete the process, based on their previous experiences with similar collections.

“Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility; whether there are any questions you felt were unnecessary?”

Comments: State Historic Preservation Office: The information provides yearly start and finish statistics for our annual report to NPS and our local legislative officers. The accumulative information provides important data necessary for future planning and preparing the five-year plan.

NPS Response: While NPS collects information to ensure compliance with laws and policies and grant award terms and conditions, the data are also often useful for states, tribes, and local governments to track program accomplishments, too. No action required.

“The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information.”

Comments: We received a total of 7 responses on burden hour estimates. Of these 7 responses, 3 were from a State Historic Preservation Office, 1 was from a local Certified Local Government, 1 was from a state Certified Local Government coordinator, and 1 response included data for both the state coordinator and a local government. Finally, we received 1 response from a Tribal Historic Preservation Office. The estimates are in the tables below.

NPS Response: The burden response data received reflect the wide variety of respondents from whom information is collected and whose operational structure greatly influences the completion time of any collection item. Overall, the data aligns with our estimates from years’ past for each respondent group remains consistent. No action required.

“Do you have any suggestions for us on ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?”

Comments: Respondents contacted did not have suggestions for improving the collection of information at this time.

NPS Response: No action required.

“Any ideas you might suggest which would minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents?”

Comments: NPS should collect the minimum requirements for annual reporting. Periodic evaluation of CLGs would be helpful.

NPS Response: NPS only requests the minimum reporting required by the Act. The information currently collected in the Cumulative Products Tables is required no more than every four years. No action needed.

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

We do not provide payments or gifts to respondents other than remuneration of grantees.

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

We make no assurance of confidentiality. The only exception is for location information concerning some properties included in the State inventories. Access to information is Pursuant to Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 307103).

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.

We do not ask questions 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.

We estimate that we will receive 43,108 responses totaling 40,761 annual burden hours (Table 12.1).

The estimated dollar value of the burden hours associated with this information collection is $2,234,201. We used Bureau of Labor Statistics news release USDL-20-1736, September 17, 2020, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2020 (https://www.bls.gov/news.Release/pdf/ecec.pdf), to calculate the total annual burden. Table 1 lists the rate for State and Local government workers $52.36, including benefits.

TABLE 12. 1. Total Estimated Annualized Hour Burden

Activity	Annual Number of Responses	Completion Time Per Response (Hours)	Total Annual Burden Hours
Local Government Certification Application/Agreement (State)	30	18.5	555
Certified Local Government Monitoring (State)	2,000	5	10,000
Certified Local Government Evaluations (State)	500	5	2,500
Baseline Questionnaire for Certified Local Governments (State)	250	.75	188
Annual Achievements Report for Certified Local Governments	1,000	2	2,000
State Inventory Maintenance	10,856	.25	2,714
State Technical Assistance to Federal Agencies (Review & Compliance)	24,603	.25	6151
State Program Review	15	90	1,350
HPF Online (State Cumulative Products Table - Projections)	59	2.63	155
State Organization Chart and Staffing Summary	59	1.5	89
State Project Notification	59	6	354
State Final Project Report	59	5.5	325
HPF Online (State Project/Activity Database Report - Projections)	59	5.25	310
HPF Online Closeout/EOY (State Sources of Non-federal Matching Share Report)	52	2.25	117
State Significant Preservation Accomplishments Summary	25	2.25	56
Reporting and Quality Control Requirement - Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) Grants Product Summary Page	170	10	1,700
Reporting and Quality Control Requirement - Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) Annual Report	170	8	1,360
Statewide Historic Preservation Plan	14	166	2,324
Local Government Certification Application/Agreement (CLG)	30	15	450
Certified Local Government Monitoring (CLG)	2,000	2	4,000
Certified Local Government Evaluations (CLG)	500	4	2,000
Baseline Questionnaire for Certified Local Governments (CLG)	250	2	500
State Staff/Review Board Certification (mistakenly not reported last cycle)	59	2.5	148
HPF Online Closeout/EOY (State Cumulative Products Table - Actuals)	59	10.5	620
HPF Online Closeout/EOY (State Project Activity Database Report - Actuals)	59	2.5	148
HPF Online Closeout/EOY (Project Activity Database – sub-granted activities)	59	5	295
HPF Online Closeout/EOY (Carry-Over Statement)	53	0.5	27
HPF Online Closeout/EOY (State Success Stories - Detailed)	59	5.5	325
TOTAL	43,108		40,761

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 are no non-hour cost burdens to respondents.

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.

We estimate that the annualized cost to the Federal government for reviewing and processing applications is $327,210 ‬ ($224,010 for salaries and $103,200 for operational expenses). This estimate is based the time spent to complete each activity (Table 14.1 below). To determine average hourly rate for a GS11/5 employee, we used Office of Personnel Management Salary Table 2020-DCB- https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/20Tables/html/DCB_h.aspx to determine the hourly wages ($39.12). We used the multiplier of 1.59 found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics news release USDL-20-1736, September 17, 2020, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2020 (https://www.bls.gov/news.Release/pdf/ecec.pdf), to calculate the most current benefits rates for government employees to obtain the fully burdened rate of $62.59 ($39.12 x 1.59).

Table 14.1 Annualized Cost to the Federal Government

Activities	Annual Number of Responses	Total Annual Hours	Annual Cost*
Historic Preservation Fund Online Application	118	99	$ 6,196
State Organization Chart and Staffing Summary	59	14.75	923
State Staff and Review Board Certification	59	9	563
Historic Preservation Online Closeout/EOY	341	159	9,952
State Technical Assistance to Federal Agencies (Review and Compliance)	59	59	3,693
Statewide Historic Preservation Plan	14	126	7,886
State Project Notification	59	59	3,693
State Final Project Report	59	59	3,693
Annual Achievements Report for States (Accomplishments under State Law)	25	4.25	266
Local Government Certification Application	30	30	1,878
Certified Local Government Evaluations	50	50	3,130
Baseline Questionnaire for CLGs (Accomplishments Under Local Law)	250	38.5	2,410
Annual Achievements Report for CLGs (Accomplishments Under Local Law)	1,000	151	9,451
Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) Grants Product Summary	170	25.5	1,596
THPO Annual Report	170	85	5,320
State Program Review	15	2,610	163,360
TOTAL	2,478	3579	$224,010

*fully burdened rate of $62.59 ($39.12 x 1.59).

Table 14.2 Operational Expenses

Expense	Cost
HPF Online system maintenance	$25,000
Adobe software	$600
State Program Review (on-site review)	$77,600
Total	$103,200

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

There are no programmatic changes that impact the hour or cost burden associated with this collection of information.

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.

Upon certification, we add the name of each Certified Local Government to our CLG website. For State Historic Preservation Plans we require States to either publish their approved plan or post on their web sites. The HPP website also provides links to all approved and posted State Plans. Data from the Cumulative Products Tables is published in the Historic Preservation Fund annual report.

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.

We will display the OMB control number and expiration date on the forms and systems associated with this collection.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement.

There are no exceptions to the certification statement.