The United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution; Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request: See List of Evaluation Related ICRs in Section A, 19097-19102 [05-7278]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Notices
However, interested parties are invited
to submit written statements or briefs
concerning this investigation. All
written submissions, statements, and
briefs, should be addressed to the
Secretary, United States International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, and should be
filed not later than 5:15 p.m., May 6,
2005. All written submissions must
conform with the provisions of section
201.8 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.8).
Section 201.8 of the rules requires that
a signed original (or a copy designated
as an original) and fourteen (14) copies
of each document be filed. In the event
that confidential treatment of the
document is requested, at least four (4)
additional copies must be filed, in
which the confidential information
must be deleted (see the following
paragraph for further information
regarding confidential business
information). The Commission’s rules
do not authorize filing submissions with
the Secretary by facsimile or electronic
means, except to the extent permitted by
section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook
for Electronic Filing Procedures, ftp://
ftp.usitc.gov/pub/reports/
electronic_filing_handbook.pdf).
Any submissions that contain
confidential business information must
also conform with the requirements of
section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules
requires that the cover of the document
and the individual pages be clearly
marked as to whether they are the
‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘nonconfidential’’
version, and that the confidential
business information be clearly
identified by means of brackets. All
written submissions, except for
confidential business information, will
be made available in the Office of the
Secretary to the Commission for
inspection by interested parties.
The Commission may include some or
all of the confidential business
information submitted in the course of
these investigations in the report it
sends to the USTR and the President. As
requested by the USTR, the Commission
will publish a public version of the
report. However, in the public version,
the Commission will not publish
confidential business information in a
manner that would reveal the operations
of the firm supplying the information.
Persons with mobility impairments
who will need special assistance in
gaining access to the Commission
should contact the Secretary at 202–
205–2000.
Issued: April 7, 2005.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:48 Apr 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–7299 Filed 4–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP
AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
FOUNDATION
The United States Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution;
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request: See List of
Evaluation Related ICRs in Section A
Morris K. Udall Scholarship
and Excellence in National
Environmental Policy Foundation, U.S.
Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act and
supporting regulations, this document
announces that the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution (the
U.S. Institute), part of the Morris K.
Udall Foundation, is submitting to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) six Information Collection
Requests (ICRs). Five of the six ICRs are
for revisions to currently approved
collections due to expire 06/30/2005
(OMB control numbers 3320–0003,
3320–0004, 3320–0005, 3320–0006, and
3320–0007). One ICR pertains to a new
collection request. The six ICRs are
being consolidated under a single filing
to provide a more coherent picture of
information collection activities
designed primarily to measure
performance. The proposed collections
are necessary to support program
evaluation activities. The collection is
expected neither to have a significant
economic impact on respondents, nor to
affect a substantial number of small
entities. The average cost (in time spent)
per respondent is estimated to be 0.16
hours/$6.18. Each ICR describes the
authority and need for program
evaluation, the nature and use of the
information to be collected, the
expected burden and cost to
respondents and the U.S. Institute, and
how the evaluation results will be made
available. The ICRs also contain the
specific questionnaires that will be used
to collect the information for each
program area. Approval is being sought
for each ICR separately, and information
collection will begin for each program
area once OMB has approved the
respective ICR. The U.S. Institute
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19097
published a Federal Register notice on
February 2, 2005, 70 FR, pages 5489–
5494, to solicit public comments for a
60-day period. The U.S. Institute
received one comment. The comment
and the U.S. Institute’s response are
included in the ICRs. The purpose of
this notice is to allow an additional 30
days for public comments regarding
these ICRs.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before May 12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Direct comments to: Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Keith Belton, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Desk Officer for The Morris K.
Udall Scholarship and Excellence in
National Environmental Policy
Foundation, U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution
kbelton@omb.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Technical details of the U.S. Institute’s
program evaluation system are
contained in a January 2005 design
document entitled ‘‘Program Evaluation
System at the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution’’.
Paper copies of this report can be
obtained by contacting the U.S.
Institute; an electronic copy can be
downloaded from the U.S. Institute’s
website: https://www.ecr.gov/
multiagency/program_eval.htm.
For further information or a copy of
the ICRs, contact: Patricia Orr,
Evaluation Coordinator, U.S. Institute
for Environmental Conflict Resolution,
130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson,
Arizona 85701, Fax: 520–670–5530,
Phone: 520–670–5658, E-mail:
orr@ecr.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview
To comply with the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
(Pub. L. 103–62), the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution, as
part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation,
is required to produce, each year, an
Annual Performance Budget and an
Annual Performance and Accountability
Report, linked directly to the goals and
objectives outlined in the U.S.
Institute’s five-year Strategic Plan. The
U.S. Institute’s evaluation system is key
to evaluating progress towards
achieving its performance
commitments. The U.S. Institute is
committed to evaluating all of its
projects, programs and services not only
to measure and report on performance
but also to use this information to learn
from and improve its services. The
refined evaluation system has been
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
19098
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Notices
carefully designed to support efficient
and economical generation, analysis and
use of this much-needed information,
with an emphasis on performance
measurement, learning and
improvement.
As part of the program evaluation
system, the U.S. Institute intends to
collect specific information from
participants in, and users of, several of
its programs and services. Specifically,
six programs and services are the
subject of this Federal Notice: (1)
Mediation and facilitation services; (2)
situation/conflict assessment services;
(3) training and workshop services; (4)
facilitated meeting services; (5) the
roster program services; and (6) program
support and system design services.
Evaluations will mainly involve
administering questionnaires to process
participants and professionals, as well
as members and users of the National
Roster. Responses by members of the
public to the Institute’s request for
information (i.e., questionnaires) will be
voluntary.
In 2003, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Conflict Prevention
and Resolution Center (CPRC) was
granted the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to act
as a named administrator of the U.S.
Institute’s currently approved
information collections for evaluation.
The CPRC and the U.S. Institute are
seeking approval as part of this
proposed collection to continue this
evaluation partnership. Other agencies
have approached the U.S. Institute
seeking (a) evaluation services and (b)
assistance in establishing their own
internal evaluation systems. In contrast
to the U.S. Institute’s relationship with
CPRC, these agencies are requesting the
U.S. Institute to administer its
evaluation questionnaires on their
behalf. Therefore, the U.S. Institute is
requesting OMB approval to administer
the evaluation questionnaires on behalf
of other agencies. One agency, the
Department of Interior (Office of
Collaborative Action and Dispute
Resolution) has already requested such
evaluation services through its
interagency agreement with the U.S.
Institute. The U.S. Institute is seeking
approval to make minor conforming
revisions to questionnaires to allow for
the broader application of the
instruments (e.g., change return address
on cover).
The burden estimates in the ICRs take
into consideration the multi-agency
usage of the evaluation instruments. The
broad interest in the U.S. Institute’s
evaluation system has fostered an
evaluation collaborative among several
state and federal agencies. The sharing
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:48 Apr 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
of evaluation resources and expertise is
advantageous on several fronts: (a)
Design and development efforts are not
duplicated across agencies; (b) common
methods for evaluating collaborative
processes are established; (c)
knowledge, expertise and resources are
shared, realizing cost-efficiencies for the
collaborating agencies; and (d) learning
and improvement on a broader scale
will be facilitated through the sharing of
comparable multi-agency findings.
Key Issues
The U.S. Institute would appreciate
receiving comments that can be used to:
i. Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the U.S.
Institute, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
ii. Determine whether the nature and
extent of the proposed level of
anonymity for those from whom the
U.S. Institute will be collecting
information is adequate and
appropriate;
iii. Evaluate the accuracy of the U.S.
Institute’s estimate of the burden
associated with the proposed
information collection activities;
iv. Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected;
v. Minimize the burden of the
information collection on those who are
to respond, including suggestions
concerning use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology (e.g., allowing electronic
submission of responses).
Burden
The average estimated burden for
each response is 0.16 hours/$6.18. As
used in this document, ‘‘burden’’ means
the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal
Agency. This includes time needed to:
Review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust existing
ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. Hour burdens
are monetized using fully burdened
labor rates derived from Bureau of Labor
Statistics tables (U.S. Department of
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
‘‘Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation’’, Table 2: Civilian
workers, by occupational and industry
group. Available at: https://www.ecr.gov/
multiagency/program_eval.htm.
Technical Details
Five of the six submitted ICRs are for
revisions to currently approved
collections. In 1999, the U.S. Institute,
in cooperation with the Policy
Consensus Initiative and state
alternative dispute resolution programs,
began the task of designing a common
program evaluation system. After
extensively piloting the evaluation
instruments under the currently
approved information collection, staff
from the U.S. Institute, PCI, Oregon
Dispute Resolution Commission, Oregon
Department of Justice, Florida Conflict
Resolution Consortium, Environmental
Protection Agency (Conflict Prevention
and Resolution Center), and the
Department of Interior (Center for
Alternative Dispute Resolution) joined
forces to refine the evaluation
instruments (particularly the mediation
and facilitation instruments). This effort
also benefited from input from over 40
practitioners, program administrators,
evaluators, researchers and trainers. Dr.
Kathy McKnight and Dr. Lee Sechrest,
the University of Arizona, assisted with
this effort. Evaluation consultant, Dr.
Andy Rowe, GHK International, guided
the earlier evaluation design.
Throughout this effort the William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation provided
financial assistance.
Technical details of the U.S.
Institute’s program evaluation system
are contained in a January 2005 design
document entitled ‘‘Program Evaluation
System at the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution.’’
Paper copies of this report can be
obtained by contacting the U.S.
Institute; an electronic copy can be
downloaded from the Institute’s Web
site: https://www.ecr.gov/multiagency/
program_eval.htm.
Information generated from the
evaluation system will be used for a
variety of purposes, including
performance measurement and
reporting, and ongoing improvements to
the design and operation of projects and
services. Primary audiences for results
from the evaluation system include the
Udall Foundation Board of Trustees,
Congress and OMB, and program
management and staff, who will use the
information in decision-making
regarding program operations and
directions. Secondary audiences will
likely include practitioners in the field,
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Notices
process participants, prospective users,
and members of the public.
A. List of ICRs Submitted
The U.S. Institute submitted six ICRs
to OMB, corresponding to 11 individual
questionnaires that will be administered
to those involved in collaborative
problem solving and conflict resolution
activities. Five of the six ICRs are for
revisions to currently approved
collections. In the listing below, the
questionnaires are organized into six
activity areas, indicating the recipients
of the questionnaires and, in
parentheses, the frequency of
administration per respondent.
Mediation/Facilitation Services (OMB
control number 3320–0004, expiring 06/
30/2005).
(1) Mediations/Facilitations—
Participants, at the conclusion of the
process (once).
(2) Mediations/Facilitations—
Participants, subsequent to the
conclusion of the process (once).
(3) Mediations/Facilitations—
Facilitators/Mediators (Neutral
Practitioners) at the conclusion of the
process (once);
Situation/Conflict Assessment
Services (OMB control number 3320–
0003, expiring 06/30/2005).
(4) Assessment—Initiating
Organizations and Key Participants, at
the conclusion of the assessment (once).
(5) Assessment—Assessor (Neutral
Practitioner) at the conclusion of the
assessment (once);
Training and Workshop Services
(OMB control number 3320–0006,
expiring 06/30/2005).
(6) Training/Workshop—Participants,
at the conclusion (once).
Facilitated Meeting Services (OMB
control number 3320–0007, expiring 06/
30/2005).
(7) Facilitated Meeting—Meeting
Attendees, at the conclusion of the
process (once);
Roster Program Services (OMB control
number 3320–0005, expiring 06/30/
2005).
(8) Roster—Members (once annually).
(9) Roster—Users, at the end of the
search (once).
(10) Roster—Users, subsequent to the
search (once);
Program Support and System Design
Services (New collection request).
(11) Program Support and System
Design—Agency Representatives and
Key Participants, annually or at the
conclusion of the project if the project
is completed in less than 12 months
(once annually for length of project).
B. Contact Individual for ICRs
Patricia Orr, Evaluation Coordinator,
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:48 Apr 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
Resolution, 130 South Scott Avenue,
Tucson, Arizona 85701, Fax: 520–670–
5530, Phone: 520–670–5658, E-mail:
orr@ecr.gov.
C. Confidentiality and Access to
Information
The U.S. Institute is committed to
providing agencies, researchers and the
public with information on the
effectiveness of collaborative problem
solving and conflict resolution
processes and the performance of the
U.S. Institute’s programs and services.
Access to such useful information will
be facilitated to the extent possible. The
U.S. Institute will strive to report all
information in an open and transparent
manner. The U.S. Institute is also
committed, however, to managing the
collection and reporting of data so as
not to interfere with any ongoing
processes or the subsequent
implementation of agreements. Project/
case specific data will not be released
until an appropriate time period has
passed following conclusion of the
project/case; such time periods will be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests will also be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis.
To encourage candor and
responsiveness on the part of those
completing the questionnaires, the U.S.
Institute intends to report information
obtained from questionnaires only in
the aggregate at a case/project or
program level. The U.S. Institute also
intends to withhold the names of
respondents and individuals named in
responses. The U.S. Institute believes
such information regarding individuals
is exempt from disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
pursuant to exemption (b)(6) (5 U.S.C.
Section 552(b)(6)), as the public interest
in disclosure of that information would
not outweigh the privacy interests of the
individuals. Therefore, respondents will
be afforded anonymity to the extent that
names of respondents will not be
revealed. Furthermore, no substantive
case-specific information that might be
confidential under statute, court order
or rules, or agreement of the parties will
be sought.
D. Information on Individual ICRs
Mediation/Facilitation Services
A variety of non-adversarial,
participatory processes are available as
adjuncts or alternatives to conventional
forums for solving environmental
problems or resolving environmental
conflicts. Such collaborative processes
range broadly depending on the nature
of the problem/dispute and the parties
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19099
involved as well as their context (for
example, early on in planning
processes, when seeking administrative
relief, or during litigation). Under the
right circumstances, a well-designed
collaborative process facilitated or
mediated by the appropriate mediator/
facilitator (neutral practitioner) can
effectively assist parties in reaching
agreement on plans, proposals, and
recommendations to solve their problem
or resolve their dispute. Collaborative
processes can also result in
improvement in relationships among
the parties, and increase capacity among
the parties to manage or resolve the
issue or dispute. The following survey
instruments have been designed for use
across the broad range of collaborative
processes, be it a process to reach
agreement on a plan or a set of
recommendations or environmental
mediation to resolve a dispute.
(1) Mediation/Facilitation Process—
Participants End-of-Process
Questionnaire; Revision of a currently
approved collection; Abstract:
Immediately following conclusion of a
mediation/facilitation process, the
participants that have been involved
will be surveyed once, via
questionnaire, to determine their views
on a variety of issues. Topics to be
investigated include: Are the parties
now more likely to consider
collaborative processes in the future;
were the appropriate participants
effectively engaged; did the participants
have the capacity to engage in the
process; was the mediator/facilitator
that guided the process appropriate; and
did all participants have access to
relevant information? The voluntary
questionnaire contains 27 questions
requiring respondents to provide fill-inthe blank and open-ended responses.
Information from the questionnaire will
provide the opportunity to evaluate if
the intended outcomes were achieved,
and if so or not, why. Affected Entities:
Entities potentially affected by this
action are parties to the collaborative
processes. Burden Statement: It is
estimated that the annual national
public burden and associated costs will
be approximately 600 hours and
$23,400 respectively. These values were
calculated assuming that on average: (a)
Participants require 20 minutes per
questionnaire; (b) there are 12
respondents per case; (c) respondents
are requested to complete this survey
only once; and (d) there will be 150
cases evaluated each year. Cost burden
estimates assume: (a) There are no
capital or start-up costs for respondents,
and (b) respondents’ time is valued at
$39/hr.
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
19100
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Notices
(2) Mediation/Facilitation Process—
Participants Follow-up Questionnaire;
Revision of a currently approved
collection; Abstract: To gain information
concerning the longer-term effectiveness
of the mediation/facilitation process, a
follow-up questionnaire will be
administered to the parties at a future
date following conclusion of the
process. Topics to be examined include:
Do all participants perceive an
improvement in their collective
relationships; is the agreement durable.
The voluntary questionnaire contains 12
questions requiring respondents to
provide fill-in-the blank and openended responses. Information from the
questionnaire will permit U.S. Institute
staff to evaluate if the process outcomes
were sustainable, and if not, why not.
The information will also facilitate the
assessment of the longer-term impacts of
the collaborative processes and
agreements. Affected Entities: Entities
potentially affected by this action are
participants to mediations/facilitations.
Burden Statement: It is estimated that
the annual national public burden and
associated costs will be approximately
300 hours and $11,700, respectively.
These values were calculated assuming
that on average: (a) Participants require
10 minutes per questionnaire; (b) there
are approximately 12 respondents per
project; (c) respondents are asked to
complete this questionnaire only once;
and (d) there will be 150 cases evaluated
each year. Cost burden estimates
assume: (a) There are no capital or startup costs for respondents, and (b)
respondents’ time is valued at $39/hr.
(3) Mediation/Facilitation Process—
Mediator/Facilitator (Neutral
Practitioner) Questionnaire; Revision of
a currently approved collection;
Abstract: Immediately following
conclusion of a mediation/facilitation
process, the mediator(s)/facilitator(s)
will be surveyed once, via
questionnaire, to determine their views
on a variety of issues. Topics to be
investigated include: Was the
collaborative approach well suited to
the nature of the issues in conflict; were
all key parties consulted, and, were all
key issues and alternatives properly
identified and considered? In most
cases, it will be specified in the
mediator/facilitator contracts that they
are required to complete the
questionnaire. The mediator/facilitator
questionnaire contains 34 questions.
Information from this questionnaire will
provide the opportunity to evaluate if
the intended mediation/facilitation
outcomes/impacts were achieved, and if
so or not, why. Affected Entities:
Entities potentially affected by this
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:48 Apr 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
action are mediators/facilitators who are
federal agency staff or contracted nonfederal professionals. Burden Statement:
It is estimated that the annual national
public burden and associated costs will
be approximately 100 hours and $3,900,
respectively. These values were
calculated assuming that on average: (a)
Mediators/facilitators will require 30
minutes per questionnaire; (b) there are
2 respondents per project; (c)
respondents are surveyed only once;
and (d) there will be 100 cases evaluated
each year (Note: The EPA’s CPRC does
not require ICR clearance to evaluate its
cases using this instrument. The CPRC
mediators/facilitators will be paid under
contract to complete the evaluation
questionnaires). Cost burden estimates
assume: (a) There are no capital or startup costs for respondents, and (b)
respondents’ time is valued at $39/hr.
Situation/Conflict Assessment Services
Situation or conflict assessments are
conducted by a neutral party and
include a series of confidential
interviews in person or on the telephone
with individuals or groups of parties.
Through such assessments, assessors
(neutral practitioners) identify and
clarify key issues and parties, and assess
the appropriateness of a mediation/
facilitation process and its potential for
helping the parties reach agreement.
Assessment reports seek to clarify and
communicate in a neutral manner the
issues and concerns of all parties, and
commonly conclude with process
design recommendations intended to
provide the parties with one or more
options for effectively collaborating to
find a solution to their conflict.
(4) Assessment—Initiating
Organization/Key Participant
Questionnaire; Revision of a currently
approved collection; Abstract:
Immediately following conclusion of a
situation/conflict assessment process,
the initiating agencies/organization(s)
and key participants will be surveyed
once via questionnaire to determine
their views on a variety of issues. Topics
to be investigated include: Was the
conflict assessment approach well
suited to the nature of the issues in
conflict; was the selected assessor
(neutral practitioner) appropriate for the
assignment; were all key parties
consulted, and, were all key issues and
alternatives properly identified and
considered? The voluntary
questionnaire contains 11 questions
requiring respondents to provide fill-inthe blank and open-ended responses.
Information from the questionnaire
provides the opportunity to: (a) Evaluate
the performance for specific cases/
projects; (b) evaluate the performance of
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
assessment programs; and (c) use the
evaluation feedback as a learning tool to
improve the design of future assessment
cases/projects. Affected Entities: Entities
potentially affected by this action are
individuals in initiating and other key
organizations that participate in a
conflict assessment. Burden Statement:
It is estimated that the annual national
public burden and associated costs will
be approximately 62.5 hours and $2,437
respectively. These values were
calculated assuming that on average: (a)
Respondents require 10 minutes per
questionnaire; (b) there are 5
respondents per project (c) respondents
are surveyed only once; and (d) there
will be 75 assessments evaluated each
year. Cost burden estimates assume: (a)
there are no capital or start-up costs for
respondents, and (b) respondents’ time
is valued at $39/hr.
(5) Assessment—Assessor (Neutral
Practitioner) Questionnaire; Revision of
a currently approved collection;
Abstract: Immediately following
conclusion of a situation/conflict
assessment, the selected assessor(s) will
be surveyed once via questionnaire to
determine their views on a variety of
issues. Topics to be investigated
include: Was the conflict assessment
approach well suited to the nature of the
issues in conflict; was assisted
negotiation recommended; and, was the
recommendation followed? In most
cases, it will be specified in the
assessor’s contract that the assessor will
be required to complete the
questionnaire. The assessor’s
questionnaire contains nine questions
requiring respondents to provide fill-inthe blank and open-ended responses.
Information from the questionnaire will
permit the agency staff to evaluate the
assessment process and outcomes, and
learn from and improve the design of
future assessment projects. Affected
Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are assessors who either are
staff from or have been contracted by
the agency. Burden Statement: It is
estimated that the annual national
public burden and associated costs will
be approximately 5 hours and $195,
respectively. These values were
calculated assuming that on average: (a)
Assessors require 6 minutes per
questionnaire; (b) there is one
respondent per project; (c) respondents
are surveyed only once; and (d) there
will be 50 assessments evaluated each
year (Note: The EPA’s CPRC does not
require ICR clearance to evaluate its
cases using this instrument. The CPRC
assessors are paid under contract to
complete the evaluation questionnaires).
Cost burden estimates assume: (a) There
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Notices
are no capital or start-up costs for
respondents, and (b) respondents’ time
is valued at $39/hr.
Training and Workshop Services
Training and workshop sessions are
conducted by agency staff and
contractors for a variety of audiences.
The subject of training and workshop
sessions varies widely, depending on
the participants and their specific
training needs. In general, the training
and workshop sessions are designed to
increase the appropriate and effective
use of collaborative problem solving and
conflict resolution processes.
(6) Training/Workshop—Participants
Questionnaire, at the conclusion of the
training/workshop; Revision of a
currently approved collection; Abstract:
Training participants will be asked to
complete a voluntary questionnaire at
the end of the training or workshop
session. Participation is voluntary and
the survey instrument contains seven
questions, requiring responses to fill-inthe-blank and open-ended questions.
Topics to be evaluated include whether:
The training objectives were clear and
understood by the participants; an
appropriate trainer(s)/facilitator(s)
guided the session; participants were
engaged appropriately; participants
gained unable knowledge. Affected
Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are individuals who
participate in training/workshop
sessions. Burden Statement: It is
estimated that the annual national
public burden and associated costs will
be approximately 195 hours and $7,605,
respectively. These values were
calculated assuming that on average: (a)
Training participants require 6 minutes
to complete this questionnaire; and (b)
there will be 1,950 participants
evaluated each year. Cost burden
estimates assume: (a) There are no
capital or start-up costs for respondents,
and (b) respondents’ time is valued at
$39/hr.
Facilitated Meeting Services
Agency staff and contractors facilitate
and provide leadership for many
meetings, ranging from small group
meetings to large public convenings of
several hundred attendees. The purpose
of the facilitated meetings varies widely,
depending on the attendees and their
specific meeting objectives.
(7) Meeting Facilitation—Participants
Questionnaire, at the conclusion of the
meeting; Revision of a currently
approved collection; Abstract:
Participants at facilitated meetings run
by agency staff or contractors will be
asked to complete a voluntary
questionnaire at the conclusion of the
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:48 Apr 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
meeting. The questionnaire used in this
case contains seven questions, requiring
fill-in-the blank and open-ended
responses. Information from this
questionnaire will help evaluate the
effectiveness of meeting design,
effectiveness of facilitator(s), and
meeting accomplishments. Affected
Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are individuals who
participate in these meetings. Burden
Statement: It is estimated that the
annual national public burden and
associated costs will be approximately
351 hours and $13,689, respectively.
These values were calculated assuming
that on average: (a) Meeting attendees
require 6 minutes to complete the
questionnaire, and (b) there will be
3,510 participants evaluated each year.
Cost burden estimates assume: (a) There
are no capital or start-up costs for
respondents, and (b) respondents’ time
is valued at $39/hr.
Roster Program Services
The U.S. Institute has a full-time
Roster Manager who supervises a Roster
Program consisting of two main
components: Design and operation of
the National Roster of Environmental
Dispute Resolution and Consensus
Building Professionals and an
associated referral system. Membership
on the roster remains open to new
applicants at all times. Potential
members apply on-line and are required
to provide information that
demonstrates a level of training and
experience adequate to meet specific,
objective entry criteria. First constituted
in February 2000, the roster currently
includes over 250 members nationwide.
When making referrals and locating
neutral practitioners for sub-contracting,
the U.S. Institute uses the roster as a
primary source to identify experienced
individuals, particularly in the locale of
the project or dispute (as required by the
U.S. Institute’s enabling legislation).
The public now has direct access to the
roster search system via the Internet.
When requested by any party, the Roster
Manager also provides advice and
assistance regarding selection of
appropriate practitioners.
(8) Roster—Members Questionnaire;
Revision of a currently approved
collection; Abstract: On an annual basis
roster members will be surveyed to
evaluate their perceptions of the roster
and to solicit their feedback on how the
roster program can be improved. This
voluntary questionnaire contains two
questions, requiring fill-in-the blank and
open-ended responses. Information from
this questionnaire will permit U.S.
Institute staff to evaluate how well the
Roster is performing in meeting the
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19101
needs of roster members. Affected
Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are roster members. Burden
Statement: It is estimated that the
annual national public burden and
associated costs will be approximately
25 hours and $975, respectively. These
values were calculated assuming that on
average: (a) Roster members require 5
minutes per questionnaire; (b) 300 roster
members will respond per year; (c)
respondents are surveyed only once
annually. Cost burden estimates assume:
(a) There are no capital or start-up costs
for respondents, and (b) respondents’
time is valued at $39/hr.
(9) Roster—Questionnaire for Users
After Each Roster Search; Revision of a
currently approved collection; Abstract:
Users who search the roster will be
surveyed once for each new roster
search. This voluntary questionnaire
contains four questions, requiring
simple fill-in-the blank and open-ended
responses. Information from this
questionnaire will permit U.S. Institute
staff to evaluate how well the Roster is
performing in meeting the needs of
those searching the roster. Affected
Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are individuals who use the
roster search system. Burden Statement:
It is estimated that the annual national
public burden and associated costs will
be approximately 50 hours and $1,950
respectively. These values were
calculated assuming that on average: (a)
Roster searchers require six minutes to
complete the questionnaire; (b) there
will be 500 searches per year; and (c)
searchers are asked to complete this
questionnaire once per search. Cost
burden estimates assume: (a) There are
no capital or start-up costs for
respondents, and (b) respondents’ time
is valued at $39/hr.
(10) Roster—User Questionnaire—
Follow-Up to Search; Revision of a
currently approved collection; Abstract:
Users of the roster system will receive
a follow-up questionnaire
approximately four weeks after their
search. This voluntary questionnaire
contains five questions, requiring fill-inthe blank and open-ended responses.
Information from this questionnaire will
permit U.S. Institute staff to evaluate
how well the roster program is
performing to help users find
appropriate practitioners. Affected
Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are individuals who use the
roster search system. Burden Statement:
It is estimated that the annual national
public burden and associated costs will
be approximately 17 hours and $663,
respectively. These values were
calculated assuming that on average: (a)
Users will require four minutes to
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
19102
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Notices
complete the questionnaire; (b) there
will be 250 follow-up evaluations
administered each year; and (c)
searchers are asked to complete this
questionnaire once per search. Cost
burden estimates assume: (a) There are
no capital or start-up costs for
respondents, and (b) respondents’ time
is valued at $39/hr.
Program Support and System Design
Services
The U.S. Institute provides leadership
and assistance to agencies/organizations
developing collaborative problem
solving and dispute resolution programs
and systems. Program development and
dispute system design services include
assistance with planning, developing,
designing, implementing, evaluating,
and/or refining federal environmental
conflict resolution programs, systems
for handling administrative disputes, or
approaches for managing environmental
decision making (e.g., with processes
under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)).
(11) Program Support and System
Design Services—Questionnaire for
Agency Representatives and Key
Participants (annual survey for length of
project);
New collection request; Abstract:
Agency representatives and key project
participants who request and receive
U.S. Institute program support and
system design services will be asked to
complete a voluntary questionnaire
containing seven questions. The
questionnaire will require fill-in-the
blank and open-ended responses.
Affected Entities: Entities potentially
affected by this action are individuals
who benefit from program support and
system design services from the U.S.
Institute. Burden Statement: It is
estimated that the annual national
public burden and associated costs will
be approximately six hours and $234,
respectively. These values were
calculated assuming that on average: (a)
Agency representatives or key project
participants require six minutes to
complete the questionnaire; (b) there
will be 60 responses each year; and (c)
on average three agency representatives/
key participants are involved in each
initiative. Cost burden estimates
assume: (a) There are no capital or startup costs for respondents, and (b)
respondents’ time is valued at $39/hr.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 5601–5609)
Dated: April 6, 2005.
Christopher L. Helms,
Executive Director, Morris K. Udall
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 05–7278 Filed 4–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–FN–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:48 Apr 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 05–070]
National Environmental Policy Act;
Mars Exploration Program
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Notice of availability of final
programmatic environmental impact
statement (FPEIS) for implementation of
the Mars Exploration Program (MEP).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations for Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40
CFR parts 1500–1508), and NASA
policy and procedures (14 CFR part
1216 subpart 1216.3), NASA has
prepared and issued an FPEIS for the
MEP. The FPEIS addresses the potential
environmental impacts associated with
continuing the preparations for and
implementing the program. The MEP
would be a science-driven, technologyenabled effort to characterize and
understand Mars using an exploration
strategy which focuses on evidence of
the presence of water. The Proposed
Action, that is NASA’s Preferred
Alternative, addresses the preparation
for and implementation of a coordinated
series of robotic orbital, surface, and
atmospheric missions to gather
scientific data on Mars and its
environments through 2020. Continued
planning for missions to return Martian
samples to Earth would be included.
Some MEP missions could use
radioisotope power systems (RPSs) for
electricity, radioisotope heater units
(RHUs) for thermal control, and small
quantities of radioisotopes in science
instruments for experiments and
instrument calibration. Environmental
impacts associated with specific
missions would be addressed in
subsequent environmental
documentation, as appropriate.
Missions launched from the United
States would likely originate from either
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
(CCAFS), Florida, or Vandenberg Air
Force Base (VAFB), California.
DATES: NASA will take no final action
on the proposed MEP on or before May
12, 2005, or 30 days from the date of
publication in the Federal Register of
the EPA notice of availability of the
MEP FPEIS, whichever is later.
ADDRESSES: The FPEIS may be reviewed
at the following locations:
(a) NASA Headquarters, Library,
Room 1J20, 300 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20546–0001;
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(b) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Visitors
Lobby, Building 249, 4800 Oak Grove
Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109.
Hard copies of the FPEIS may be
reviewed at other NASA Centers (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below).
Limited hard copies of the FEIS are
available for distribution by contacting
Mark R. Dahl at the address, telephone
number, or electronic mail address
indicated below. The FPEIS is also
available in Acrobat format at https://
spacescience.nasa.gov/admin/pubs/
mepeis/index.htm. NASA’s Record of
Decision (ROD) will also be placed on
that Web site when it is issued. Anyone
who desires a hard copy of NASA’s
ROD when it is issued also should
contact Mr. Dahl.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark R. Dahl, Mission and Systems
Management Division, Science Mission
Directorate, Mail Suite 3C66, NASA
Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546–
0001; telephone (202) 358–4800;
electronic mail mep.nepa@hq.nasa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With the
MEP, NASA would establish a series of
objectives to address the open scientific
questions associated with the
exploration of Mars. These objectives
have been organized by the program as
follows:
• Determine if life exists or has ever
existed on Mars;
• Understand the current state and
evolution of the atmosphere, surface,
and interior of Mars; and
• Develop an understanding of Mars
in support of possible future human
exploration.
The purpose of the action addressed
in the FPEIS is to further the scientific
goals of the MEP by continuing the
exploration and characterization of the
planet. On the basis of the knowledge
gained from prior and ongoing missions,
it appears that Mars, like Earth, has
experienced dynamic interactions
among its atmosphere, surface, and
interior that are, at least in part, related
to water. Following the pathways and
cycles of water has emerged as a strategy
that possibly may lead to a preserved
record of biological processes, as well as
the character of ancient environments
on Mars. In addition to understanding
the history of Mars, investigations
undertaken in the MEP may shed light
on current environments that could
support existing biological processes.
The Proposed Action (Alternative 1)
would consist of a long-term program
that, as a goal, sends at least one
spacecraft to Mars during each launch
opportunity extending through the first
two decades of the twenty-first century.
Efficient launch opportunities to Mars
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19097-19102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7278]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY FOUNDATION
The United States Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution; Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for
OMB Review; Comment Request: See List of Evaluation Related ICRs in
Section A
AGENCY: Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental Policy Foundation, U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and supporting
regulations, this document announces that the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution (the U.S. Institute), part of the
Morris K. Udall Foundation, is submitting to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) six Information Collection Requests (ICRs). Five of
the six ICRs are for revisions to currently approved collections due to
expire 06/30/2005 (OMB control numbers 3320-0003, 3320-0004, 3320-0005,
3320-0006, and 3320-0007). One ICR pertains to a new collection
request. The six ICRs are being consolidated under a single filing to
provide a more coherent picture of information collection activities
designed primarily to measure performance. The proposed collections are
necessary to support program evaluation activities. The collection is
expected neither to have a significant economic impact on respondents,
nor to affect a substantial number of small entities. The average cost
(in time spent) per respondent is estimated to be 0.16 hours/$6.18.
Each ICR describes the authority and need for program evaluation, the
nature and use of the information to be collected, the expected burden
and cost to respondents and the U.S. Institute, and how the evaluation
results will be made available. The ICRs also contain the specific
questionnaires that will be used to collect the information for each
program area. Approval is being sought for each ICR separately, and
information collection will begin for each program area once OMB has
approved the respective ICR. The U.S. Institute published a Federal
Register notice on February 2, 2005, 70 FR, pages 5489-5494, to solicit
public comments for a 60-day period. The U.S. Institute received one
comment. The comment and the U.S. Institute's response are included in
the ICRs. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days
for public comments regarding these ICRs.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Direct comments to: Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Keith
Belton, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Desk Officer for
The Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental Policy Foundation, U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution kbelton@omb.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical details of the U.S.
Institute's program evaluation system are contained in a January 2005
design document entitled ``Program Evaluation System at the U.S.
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution''. Paper copies of this
report can be obtained by contacting the U.S. Institute; an electronic
copy can be downloaded from the U.S. Institute's website: https://
www.ecr.gov/multiagency/program_eval.htm.
For further information or a copy of the ICRs, contact: Patricia
Orr, Evaluation Coordinator, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701, Fax: 520-
670-5530, Phone: 520-670-5658, E-mail: orr@ecr.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview
To comply with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
(Pub. L. 103-62), the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution, as part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, is required to
produce, each year, an Annual Performance Budget and an Annual
Performance and Accountability Report, linked directly to the goals and
objectives outlined in the U.S. Institute's five-year Strategic Plan.
The U.S. Institute's evaluation system is key to evaluating progress
towards achieving its performance commitments. The U.S. Institute is
committed to evaluating all of its projects, programs and services not
only to measure and report on performance but also to use this
information to learn from and improve its services. The refined
evaluation system has been
[[Page 19098]]
carefully designed to support efficient and economical generation,
analysis and use of this much-needed information, with an emphasis on
performance measurement, learning and improvement.
As part of the program evaluation system, the U.S. Institute
intends to collect specific information from participants in, and users
of, several of its programs and services. Specifically, six programs
and services are the subject of this Federal Notice: (1) Mediation and
facilitation services; (2) situation/conflict assessment services; (3)
training and workshop services; (4) facilitated meeting services; (5)
the roster program services; and (6) program support and system design
services. Evaluations will mainly involve administering questionnaires
to process participants and professionals, as well as members and users
of the National Roster. Responses by members of the public to the
Institute's request for information (i.e., questionnaires) will be
voluntary.
In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Conflict
Prevention and Resolution Center (CPRC) was granted the approval of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to act as a named administrator
of the U.S. Institute's currently approved information collections for
evaluation. The CPRC and the U.S. Institute are seeking approval as
part of this proposed collection to continue this evaluation
partnership. Other agencies have approached the U.S. Institute seeking
(a) evaluation services and (b) assistance in establishing their own
internal evaluation systems. In contrast to the U.S. Institute's
relationship with CPRC, these agencies are requesting the U.S.
Institute to administer its evaluation questionnaires on their behalf.
Therefore, the U.S. Institute is requesting OMB approval to administer
the evaluation questionnaires on behalf of other agencies. One agency,
the Department of Interior (Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute
Resolution) has already requested such evaluation services through its
interagency agreement with the U.S. Institute. The U.S. Institute is
seeking approval to make minor conforming revisions to questionnaires
to allow for the broader application of the instruments (e.g., change
return address on cover).
The burden estimates in the ICRs take into consideration the multi-
agency usage of the evaluation instruments. The broad interest in the
U.S. Institute's evaluation system has fostered an evaluation
collaborative among several state and federal agencies. The sharing of
evaluation resources and expertise is advantageous on several fronts:
(a) Design and development efforts are not duplicated across agencies;
(b) common methods for evaluating collaborative processes are
established; (c) knowledge, expertise and resources are shared,
realizing cost-efficiencies for the collaborating agencies; and (d)
learning and improvement on a broader scale will be facilitated through
the sharing of comparable multi-agency findings.
Key Issues
The U.S. Institute would appreciate receiving comments that can be
used to:
i. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the U.S. Institute, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
ii. Determine whether the nature and extent of the proposed level
of anonymity for those from whom the U.S. Institute will be collecting
information is adequate and appropriate;
iii. Evaluate the accuracy of the U.S. Institute's estimate of the
burden associated with the proposed information collection activities;
iv. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected;
v. Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond, including suggestions concerning use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g.,
allowing electronic submission of responses).
Burden
The average estimated burden for each response is 0.16 hours/$6.18.
As used in this document, ``burden'' means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This
includes time needed to: Review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information. Hour burdens are monetized using fully burdened labor
rates derived from Bureau of Labor Statistics tables (U.S. Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation'', Table 2: Civilian workers, by occupational and industry
group. Available at: https://www.ecr.gov/multiagency/program_eval.htm.
Technical Details
Five of the six submitted ICRs are for revisions to currently
approved collections. In 1999, the U.S. Institute, in cooperation with
the Policy Consensus Initiative and state alternative dispute
resolution programs, began the task of designing a common program
evaluation system. After extensively piloting the evaluation
instruments under the currently approved information collection, staff
from the U.S. Institute, PCI, Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission,
Oregon Department of Justice, Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium,
Environmental Protection Agency (Conflict Prevention and Resolution
Center), and the Department of Interior (Center for Alternative Dispute
Resolution) joined forces to refine the evaluation instruments
(particularly the mediation and facilitation instruments). This effort
also benefited from input from over 40 practitioners, program
administrators, evaluators, researchers and trainers. Dr. Kathy
McKnight and Dr. Lee Sechrest, the University of Arizona, assisted with
this effort. Evaluation consultant, Dr. Andy Rowe, GHK International,
guided the earlier evaluation design. Throughout this effort the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation provided financial assistance.
Technical details of the U.S. Institute's program evaluation system
are contained in a January 2005 design document entitled ``Program
Evaluation System at the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution.'' Paper copies of this report can be obtained by contacting
the U.S. Institute; an electronic copy can be downloaded from the
Institute's Web site: https://www.ecr.gov/multiagency/program_eval.htm.
Information generated from the evaluation system will be used for a
variety of purposes, including performance measurement and reporting,
and ongoing improvements to the design and operation of projects and
services. Primary audiences for results from the evaluation system
include the Udall Foundation Board of Trustees, Congress and OMB, and
program management and staff, who will use the information in decision-
making regarding program operations and directions. Secondary audiences
will likely include practitioners in the field,
[[Page 19099]]
process participants, prospective users, and members of the public.
A. List of ICRs Submitted
The U.S. Institute submitted six ICRs to OMB, corresponding to 11
individual questionnaires that will be administered to those involved
in collaborative problem solving and conflict resolution activities.
Five of the six ICRs are for revisions to currently approved
collections. In the listing below, the questionnaires are organized
into six activity areas, indicating the recipients of the
questionnaires and, in parentheses, the frequency of administration per
respondent.
Mediation/Facilitation Services (OMB control number 3320-0004,
expiring 06/30/2005).
(1) Mediations/Facilitations--Participants, at the conclusion of
the process (once).
(2) Mediations/Facilitations--Participants, subsequent to the
conclusion of the process (once).
(3) Mediations/Facilitations--Facilitators/Mediators (Neutral
Practitioners) at the conclusion of the process (once);
Situation/Conflict Assessment Services (OMB control number 3320-
0003, expiring 06/30/2005).
(4) Assessment--Initiating Organizations and Key Participants, at
the conclusion of the assessment (once).
(5) Assessment--Assessor (Neutral Practitioner) at the conclusion
of the assessment (once);
Training and Workshop Services (OMB control number 3320-0006,
expiring 06/30/2005).
(6) Training/Workshop--Participants, at the conclusion (once).
Facilitated Meeting Services (OMB control number 3320-0007,
expiring 06/30/2005).
(7) Facilitated Meeting--Meeting Attendees, at the conclusion of
the process (once);
Roster Program Services (OMB control number 3320-0005, expiring 06/
30/2005).
(8) Roster--Members (once annually).
(9) Roster--Users, at the end of the search (once).
(10) Roster--Users, subsequent to the search (once);
Program Support and System Design Services (New collection
request).
(11) Program Support and System Design--Agency Representatives and
Key Participants, annually or at the conclusion of the project if the
project is completed in less than 12 months (once annually for length
of project).
B. Contact Individual for ICRs
Patricia Orr, Evaluation Coordinator, U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson,
Arizona 85701, Fax: 520-670-5530, Phone: 520-670-5658, E-mail:
orr@ecr.gov.
C. Confidentiality and Access to Information
The U.S. Institute is committed to providing agencies, researchers
and the public with information on the effectiveness of collaborative
problem solving and conflict resolution processes and the performance
of the U.S. Institute's programs and services. Access to such useful
information will be facilitated to the extent possible. The U.S.
Institute will strive to report all information in an open and
transparent manner. The U.S. Institute is also committed, however, to
managing the collection and reporting of data so as not to interfere
with any ongoing processes or the subsequent implementation of
agreements. Project/case specific data will not be released until an
appropriate time period has passed following conclusion of the project/
case; such time periods will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests will also be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis.
To encourage candor and responsiveness on the part of those
completing the questionnaires, the U.S. Institute intends to report
information obtained from questionnaires only in the aggregate at a
case/project or program level. The U.S. Institute also intends to
withhold the names of respondents and individuals named in responses.
The U.S. Institute believes such information regarding individuals is
exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
pursuant to exemption (b)(6) (5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(6)), as the
public interest in disclosure of that information would not outweigh
the privacy interests of the individuals. Therefore, respondents will
be afforded anonymity to the extent that names of respondents will not
be revealed. Furthermore, no substantive case-specific information that
might be confidential under statute, court order or rules, or agreement
of the parties will be sought.
D. Information on Individual ICRs
Mediation/Facilitation Services
A variety of non-adversarial, participatory processes are available
as adjuncts or alternatives to conventional forums for solving
environmental problems or resolving environmental conflicts. Such
collaborative processes range broadly depending on the nature of the
problem/dispute and the parties involved as well as their context (for
example, early on in planning processes, when seeking administrative
relief, or during litigation). Under the right circumstances, a well-
designed collaborative process facilitated or mediated by the
appropriate mediator/facilitator (neutral practitioner) can effectively
assist parties in reaching agreement on plans, proposals, and
recommendations to solve their problem or resolve their dispute.
Collaborative processes can also result in improvement in relationships
among the parties, and increase capacity among the parties to manage or
resolve the issue or dispute. The following survey instruments have
been designed for use across the broad range of collaborative
processes, be it a process to reach agreement on a plan or a set of
recommendations or environmental mediation to resolve a dispute.
(1) Mediation/Facilitation Process--Participants End-of-Process
Questionnaire; Revision of a currently approved collection; Abstract:
Immediately following conclusion of a mediation/facilitation process,
the participants that have been involved will be surveyed once, via
questionnaire, to determine their views on a variety of issues. Topics
to be investigated include: Are the parties now more likely to consider
collaborative processes in the future; were the appropriate
participants effectively engaged; did the participants have the
capacity to engage in the process; was the mediator/facilitator that
guided the process appropriate; and did all participants have access to
relevant information? The voluntary questionnaire contains 27 questions
requiring respondents to provide fill-in-the blank and open-ended
responses. Information from the questionnaire will provide the
opportunity to evaluate if the intended outcomes were achieved, and if
so or not, why. Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are parties to the collaborative processes. Burden
Statement: It is estimated that the annual national public burden and
associated costs will be approximately 600 hours and $23,400
respectively. These values were calculated assuming that on average:
(a) Participants require 20 minutes per questionnaire; (b) there are 12
respondents per case; (c) respondents are requested to complete this
survey only once; and (d) there will be 150 cases evaluated each year.
Cost burden estimates assume: (a) There are no capital or start-up
costs for respondents, and (b) respondents' time is valued at $39/hr.
[[Page 19100]]
(2) Mediation/Facilitation Process--Participants Follow-up
Questionnaire; Revision of a currently approved collection; Abstract:
To gain information concerning the longer-term effectiveness of the
mediation/facilitation process, a follow-up questionnaire will be
administered to the parties at a future date following conclusion of
the process. Topics to be examined include: Do all participants
perceive an improvement in their collective relationships; is the
agreement durable. The voluntary questionnaire contains 12 questions
requiring respondents to provide fill-in-the blank and open-ended
responses. Information from the questionnaire will permit U.S.
Institute staff to evaluate if the process outcomes were sustainable,
and if not, why not. The information will also facilitate the
assessment of the longer-term impacts of the collaborative processes
and agreements. Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are participants to mediations/facilitations. Burden
Statement: It is estimated that the annual national public burden and
associated costs will be approximately 300 hours and $11,700,
respectively. These values were calculated assuming that on average:
(a) Participants require 10 minutes per questionnaire; (b) there are
approximately 12 respondents per project; (c) respondents are asked to
complete this questionnaire only once; and (d) there will be 150 cases
evaluated each year. Cost burden estimates assume: (a) There are no
capital or start-up costs for respondents, and (b) respondents' time is
valued at $39/hr.
(3) Mediation/Facilitation Process--Mediator/Facilitator (Neutral
Practitioner) Questionnaire; Revision of a currently approved
collection; Abstract: Immediately following conclusion of a mediation/
facilitation process, the mediator(s)/facilitator(s) will be surveyed
once, via questionnaire, to determine their views on a variety of
issues. Topics to be investigated include: Was the collaborative
approach well suited to the nature of the issues in conflict; were all
key parties consulted, and, were all key issues and alternatives
properly identified and considered? In most cases, it will be specified
in the mediator/facilitator contracts that they are required to
complete the questionnaire. The mediator/facilitator questionnaire
contains 34 questions. Information from this questionnaire will provide
the opportunity to evaluate if the intended mediation/facilitation
outcomes/impacts were achieved, and if so or not, why. Affected
Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are mediators/
facilitators who are federal agency staff or contracted non-federal
professionals. Burden Statement: It is estimated that the annual
national public burden and associated costs will be approximately 100
hours and $3,900, respectively. These values were calculated assuming
that on average: (a) Mediators/facilitators will require 30 minutes per
questionnaire; (b) there are 2 respondents per project; (c) respondents
are surveyed only once; and (d) there will be 100 cases evaluated each
year (Note: The EPA's CPRC does not require ICR clearance to evaluate
its cases using this instrument. The CPRC mediators/facilitators will
be paid under contract to complete the evaluation questionnaires). Cost
burden estimates assume: (a) There are no capital or start-up costs for
respondents, and (b) respondents' time is valued at $39/hr.
Situation/Conflict Assessment Services
Situation or conflict assessments are conducted by a neutral party
and include a series of confidential interviews in person or on the
telephone with individuals or groups of parties. Through such
assessments, assessors (neutral practitioners) identify and clarify key
issues and parties, and assess the appropriateness of a mediation/
facilitation process and its potential for helping the parties reach
agreement. Assessment reports seek to clarify and communicate in a
neutral manner the issues and concerns of all parties, and commonly
conclude with process design recommendations intended to provide the
parties with one or more options for effectively collaborating to find
a solution to their conflict.
(4) Assessment--Initiating Organization/Key Participant
Questionnaire; Revision of a currently approved collection; Abstract:
Immediately following conclusion of a situation/conflict assessment
process, the initiating agencies/organization(s) and key participants
will be surveyed once via questionnaire to determine their views on a
variety of issues. Topics to be investigated include: Was the conflict
assessment approach well suited to the nature of the issues in
conflict; was the selected assessor (neutral practitioner) appropriate
for the assignment; were all key parties consulted, and, were all key
issues and alternatives properly identified and considered? The
voluntary questionnaire contains 11 questions requiring respondents to
provide fill-in-the blank and open-ended responses. Information from
the questionnaire provides the opportunity to: (a) Evaluate the
performance for specific cases/projects; (b) evaluate the performance
of assessment programs; and (c) use the evaluation feedback as a
learning tool to improve the design of future assessment cases/
projects. Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this
action are individuals in initiating and other key organizations that
participate in a conflict assessment. Burden Statement: It is estimated
that the annual national public burden and associated costs will be
approximately 62.5 hours and $2,437 respectively. These values were
calculated assuming that on average: (a) Respondents require 10 minutes
per questionnaire; (b) there are 5 respondents per project (c)
respondents are surveyed only once; and (d) there will be 75
assessments evaluated each year. Cost burden estimates assume: (a)
there are no capital or start-up costs for respondents, and (b)
respondents' time is valued at $39/hr.
(5) Assessment--Assessor (Neutral Practitioner) Questionnaire;
Revision of a currently approved collection; Abstract: Immediately
following conclusion of a situation/conflict assessment, the selected
assessor(s) will be surveyed once via questionnaire to determine their
views on a variety of issues. Topics to be investigated include: Was
the conflict assessment approach well suited to the nature of the
issues in conflict; was assisted negotiation recommended; and, was the
recommendation followed? In most cases, it will be specified in the
assessor's contract that the assessor will be required to complete the
questionnaire. The assessor's questionnaire contains nine questions
requiring respondents to provide fill-in-the blank and open-ended
responses. Information from the questionnaire will permit the agency
staff to evaluate the assessment process and outcomes, and learn from
and improve the design of future assessment projects. Affected
Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are assessors
who either are staff from or have been contracted by the agency. Burden
Statement: It is estimated that the annual national public burden and
associated costs will be approximately 5 hours and $195, respectively.
These values were calculated assuming that on average: (a) Assessors
require 6 minutes per questionnaire; (b) there is one respondent per
project; (c) respondents are surveyed only once; and (d) there will be
50 assessments evaluated each year (Note: The EPA's CPRC does not
require ICR clearance to evaluate its cases using this instrument. The
CPRC assessors are paid under contract to complete the evaluation
questionnaires). Cost burden estimates assume: (a) There
[[Page 19101]]
are no capital or start-up costs for respondents, and (b) respondents'
time is valued at $39/hr.
Training and Workshop Services
Training and workshop sessions are conducted by agency staff and
contractors for a variety of audiences. The subject of training and
workshop sessions varies widely, depending on the participants and
their specific training needs. In general, the training and workshop
sessions are designed to increase the appropriate and effective use of
collaborative problem solving and conflict resolution processes.
(6) Training/Workshop--Participants Questionnaire, at the
conclusion of the training/workshop; Revision of a currently approved
collection; Abstract: Training participants will be asked to complete a
voluntary questionnaire at the end of the training or workshop session.
Participation is voluntary and the survey instrument contains seven
questions, requiring responses to fill-in-the-blank and open-ended
questions. Topics to be evaluated include whether: The training
objectives were clear and understood by the participants; an
appropriate trainer(s)/facilitator(s) guided the session; participants
were engaged appropriately; participants gained unable knowledge.
Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
individuals who participate in training/workshop sessions. Burden
Statement: It is estimated that the annual national public burden and
associated costs will be approximately 195 hours and $7,605,
respectively. These values were calculated assuming that on average:
(a) Training participants require 6 minutes to complete this
questionnaire; and (b) there will be 1,950 participants evaluated each
year. Cost burden estimates assume: (a) There are no capital or start-
up costs for respondents, and (b) respondents' time is valued at $39/
hr.
Facilitated Meeting Services
Agency staff and contractors facilitate and provide leadership for
many meetings, ranging from small group meetings to large public
convenings of several hundred attendees. The purpose of the facilitated
meetings varies widely, depending on the attendees and their specific
meeting objectives.
(7) Meeting Facilitation--Participants Questionnaire, at the
conclusion of the meeting; Revision of a currently approved collection;
Abstract: Participants at facilitated meetings run by agency staff or
contractors will be asked to complete a voluntary questionnaire at the
conclusion of the meeting. The questionnaire used in this case contains
seven questions, requiring fill-in-the blank and open-ended responses.
Information from this questionnaire will help evaluate the
effectiveness of meeting design, effectiveness of facilitator(s), and
meeting accomplishments. Affected Entities: Entities potentially
affected by this action are individuals who participate in these
meetings. Burden Statement: It is estimated that the annual national
public burden and associated costs will be approximately 351 hours and
$13,689, respectively. These values were calculated assuming that on
average: (a) Meeting attendees require 6 minutes to complete the
questionnaire, and (b) there will be 3,510 participants evaluated each
year. Cost burden estimates assume: (a) There are no capital or start-
up costs for respondents, and (b) respondents' time is valued at $39/
hr.
Roster Program Services
The U.S. Institute has a full-time Roster Manager who supervises a
Roster Program consisting of two main components: Design and operation
of the National Roster of Environmental Dispute Resolution and
Consensus Building Professionals and an associated referral system.
Membership on the roster remains open to new applicants at all times.
Potential members apply on-line and are required to provide information
that demonstrates a level of training and experience adequate to meet
specific, objective entry criteria. First constituted in February 2000,
the roster currently includes over 250 members nationwide. When making
referrals and locating neutral practitioners for sub-contracting, the
U.S. Institute uses the roster as a primary source to identify
experienced individuals, particularly in the locale of the project or
dispute (as required by the U.S. Institute's enabling legislation). The
public now has direct access to the roster search system via the
Internet. When requested by any party, the Roster Manager also provides
advice and assistance regarding selection of appropriate practitioners.
(8) Roster--Members Questionnaire; Revision of a currently approved
collection; Abstract: On an annual basis roster members will be
surveyed to evaluate their perceptions of the roster and to solicit
their feedback on how the roster program can be improved. This
voluntary questionnaire contains two questions, requiring fill-in-the
blank and open-ended responses. Information from this questionnaire
will permit U.S. Institute staff to evaluate how well the Roster is
performing in meeting the needs of roster members. Affected Entities:
Entities potentially affected by this action are roster members. Burden
Statement: It is estimated that the annual national public burden and
associated costs will be approximately 25 hours and $975, respectively.
These values were calculated assuming that on average: (a) Roster
members require 5 minutes per questionnaire; (b) 300 roster members
will respond per year; (c) respondents are surveyed only once annually.
Cost burden estimates assume: (a) There are no capital or start-up
costs for respondents, and (b) respondents' time is valued at $39/hr.
(9) Roster--Questionnaire for Users After Each Roster Search;
Revision of a currently approved collection; Abstract: Users who search
the roster will be surveyed once for each new roster search. This
voluntary questionnaire contains four questions, requiring simple fill-
in-the blank and open-ended responses. Information from this
questionnaire will permit U.S. Institute staff to evaluate how well the
Roster is performing in meeting the needs of those searching the
roster. Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action
are individuals who use the roster search system. Burden Statement: It
is estimated that the annual national public burden and associated
costs will be approximately 50 hours and $1,950 respectively. These
values were calculated assuming that on average: (a) Roster searchers
require six minutes to complete the questionnaire; (b) there will be
500 searches per year; and (c) searchers are asked to complete this
questionnaire once per search. Cost burden estimates assume: (a) There
are no capital or start-up costs for respondents, and (b) respondents'
time is valued at $39/hr.
(10) Roster--User Questionnaire--Follow-Up to Search; Revision of a
currently approved collection; Abstract: Users of the roster system
will receive a follow-up questionnaire approximately four weeks after
their search. This voluntary questionnaire contains five questions,
requiring fill-in-the blank and open-ended responses. Information from
this questionnaire will permit U.S. Institute staff to evaluate how
well the roster program is performing to help users find appropriate
practitioners. Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this
action are individuals who use the roster search system. Burden
Statement: It is estimated that the annual national public burden and
associated costs will be approximately 17 hours and $663, respectively.
These values were calculated assuming that on average: (a) Users will
require four minutes to
[[Page 19102]]
complete the questionnaire; (b) there will be 250 follow-up evaluations
administered each year; and (c) searchers are asked to complete this
questionnaire once per search. Cost burden estimates assume: (a) There
are no capital or start-up costs for respondents, and (b) respondents'
time is valued at $39/hr.
Program Support and System Design Services
The U.S. Institute provides leadership and assistance to agencies/
organizations developing collaborative problem solving and dispute
resolution programs and systems. Program development and dispute system
design services include assistance with planning, developing,
designing, implementing, evaluating, and/or refining federal
environmental conflict resolution programs, systems for handling
administrative disputes, or approaches for managing environmental
decision making (e.g., with processes under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)).
(11) Program Support and System Design Services--Questionnaire for
Agency Representatives and Key Participants (annual survey for length
of project);
New collection request; Abstract: Agency representatives and key
project participants who request and receive U.S. Institute program
support and system design services will be asked to complete a
voluntary questionnaire containing seven questions. The questionnaire
will require fill-in-the blank and open-ended responses. Affected
Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are individuals
who benefit from program support and system design services from the
U.S. Institute. Burden Statement: It is estimated that the annual
national public burden and associated costs will be approximately six
hours and $234, respectively. These values were calculated assuming
that on average: (a) Agency representatives or key project participants
require six minutes to complete the questionnaire; (b) there will be 60
responses each year; and (c) on average three agency representatives/
key participants are involved in each initiative. Cost burden estimates
assume: (a) There are no capital or start-up costs for respondents, and
(b) respondents' time is valued at $39/hr.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 5601-5609)
Dated: April 6, 2005.
Christopher L. Helms,
Executive Director, Morris K. Udall Foundation.
[FR Doc. 05-7278 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-FN-P
