May 29, 2009

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST

RENEWAL

 for

  CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEYS

of

The United States Environmental Protection Agency

ICR 1711.12

OMB No 2090-0019

Table of Contents

1.	Identification of the Information Collection						  1

1(a) Title of the Information Collection						  1

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract							  1

2.	Need for and Use of the Collection							  1

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection							  1

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data						  3

3. 	Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria			  4

3(a) Non-duplication									  4

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB			  4

3(c) Consultations									  5

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection						  5

3(e) General Guidelines								  5

3(f) Confidentiality								  	  5

3(g) Sensitive Questions								  5

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested					  5

4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes							 	  5

4(b) Information Requested								  5

(I) Data items, including record keeping requirements			  5

(II) Respondent Activities							  6

5.	The Information Collected--Agency Activities, Collection Methodology,

and Information Management							 	  8

5(a) Agency Activities						 			  8

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management					  8

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility								  9

5(d) Collection Schedule								  9

6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection					 10

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden							 10

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs							 11

      (I)   Labor Costs									 11

      (II)  Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs				 11

      (III) Capital/Start-up vs. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs	  11

      (IV) Annualizing Capital Costs							 11

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost						 12

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs		 14

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables					 14

(I)   Respondent Tally								 14

(II)  The Agency Tally							 	 14

(III) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line					 14

(IV) Reasons for Change in Burden						 15

(V)  Burden Statement						 	 15

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Tables

Table 5-1 - Projected Use of Surveys 2009 - 2012						  9

Table 6-1 - Burden Table 2009-2012			       					 10

Table 6-2 - Respondent Universe, Total Burden and Costs					 11

Table 6-3 - Agency Burden/Cost for Telephone Surveys					 12

Table 6-4 - Agency Burden/Cost for Mail Surveys		 				 12

Table 6-5 - Agency Burden/Cost for Customer Feedback Forms/Internet Screens		 13

Table 6-6 - Agency Burden/Cost for Focus Groups			 			 13

Table 6-7 -Aggregate Agency Table for Annual Burden/Cost			 	 14

Table 6-8- Aggregate EPA and Respondent Costs  						 15

Exhibits – EPA Clearance Process and Samples of OMB - Approved EPA Survey Instruments

Exhibit 1 – The Process for Clearing Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys at EPA	  18

Exhibit 2 – Training and Technical Assistance Initiative for Tribes, Tribal Consortia, and     19 Insular Areas—Training Evaluation Form

Exhibit 3 – Customer Satisfaction Survey of National Pesticide Environmental                     21 Stewardship Program (PESP) Conference

Exhibit 4 – Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse Approved Survey                      26

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

VOLUNTARY CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEYS

TO IMPLEMENT

EXECUTIVE ORDER (E.O.) 12862

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a) 	Title of the Information Collection: Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys

1(b) 	Short Characterization/Abstract

In accordance with Executive Order 12862, the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) renewal of its generic clearance (OMB Control No. 2090-0019, expiring 08/31/09) for a period of three years.  The clearance will be used to conduct two types of customer satisfaction surveys: “qualitative” surveys for identifying customer perceptions through focus groups or laboratory evaluations; and “quantitative” surveys for establishing general attitudes of EPA customers through convenience sampling of customers.  A customer, as described in E.O. 12862, is considered to be “...an individual or entity who is directly served by a department of an Agency.”

By seeking renewal of the generic clearance for customer surveys, EPA will have the flexibility to gather the views of our customers to better determine the extent to which our services, products and processes satisfy their needs or need to be improved.  The generic clearance will speed the review and approval of customer surveys that solicit opinions from EPA customers on a voluntary basis, and do not involve “fact-finding” for the purposes of regulatory development or enforcement.

EPA sponsoring organizations seeking approval to conduct a customer survey will continue to submit their survey instruments with a brief description to the customer service staff in the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation within the Office of the Administrator, for a screening/assistance review of the questions.  Following review, endorsed survey packages will be sent to EPA’s Information Collections Division within the Office of Environmental Information and then to OMB.  OMB will continue to review submissions for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act on an expedited schedule.  The EPA estimates that a combination of customer satisfaction surveys (mail, telephone, feedback forms and Internet) and focus group studies will request voluntary responses from approximately 15,000 to 17,000 respondents for an estimated burden of 1,431 hours over the three-year period.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection

2a.	Need/Authority for the Collection

Executive Order 12862, dated September 11, 1993, calls upon agencies to take the following actions:

(a)	identify the customers who are, or should be, served by the agency;

(b)	survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services;

(c)	post service standards and measure results against them;

(d)	benchmark customer service performance against the best in business;

(e)	survey front-line employees on barriers to, and ideas for, matching the best in business;

(f)	provide customers with choices in both the sources of service and the means of delivery;

(g)	make information, services, and complaint systems easily accessible; and

(h)	provide means to address customer complaints.

A March 1995 Presidential memo called upon federal agencies to enhance their customer service improvement efforts.  A March 1998 Presidential memo underscored the continuing need to improve customer service and directed agencies to provide expanded opportunities for customers to communicate their needs and expectations. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires that agencies gather and use customer feedback.   Former President Bush’s Management Agenda underscored the need for citizen-centered service delivery, increased satisfaction with government services, and the ability to prove government is doing a better job through measuring outcomes.  Further, the Obama Administration has shown it values open governance and public engagement.

Using OMB’s Resource Manual for Customer Surveys (dated October 1993), which outlines the steps an Agency must take to obtain a generic clearance for Customer Satisfaction Surveys, and provides guidance on obtaining quality survey results,  EPA developed its 1997 1999,  2002 and 2006 generic information collection requests to enable staff across the Agency to continue sponsoring customer satisfaction surveys.  To reflect the Terms of Clearance for the 1997 ICR, Customer Service Program (CSP) staff developed, distributed and posted on the CSP web site a fact sheet clearly stating the restrictions on the use of this clearance.  Efforts were validated when the 2000, 2003 and 2006 Terms of Clearance supported our efforts to improve screening, encouraging staff to consult with the CSP staff.

During the past three years, EPA has worked cooperatively with OMB to clear survey instruments.  CSP staff has also advised many individuals and their contractors that their survey designs could not fit under this ICR.  CSP staff worked with others to develop surveys to assist them in gathering information that could serve at least part of their needs through this ICR.  If CSP staff could not work with regional and program staff to modify questions to fit the ICR and satisfy the needs of staff and their managers, we rejected their use of the ICR.   In 2007 and 2008 we developed and used a fact sheet to help staff and contractors understand the review and clearance process.  [A copy is provided as Exhibit 1.]

We ensure that those who wish to use the ICR understand the Terms of Clearance and we refuse to submit surveys to OMB that we feel are outside those Terms.  Our goal has been to ensure that the surveys submitted under this ICR clearly meet the Terms of Clearance that OMB set out when approving it:

“As stated in OMB's 1999 terms of clearance: "The generic ICR is approved to allow the expedited OMB clearance of EPA customer satisfaction surveys that are simple, straightforward, and narrowly focused to:

1. current or former customers of EPA products or services;

2. the level of satisfaction with an actual service or product provided by EPA that they have utilized; and,

3. their recommendations for improving said product or service."

Surveys that target these elements and are submitted to OMB in accordance with this ICR will be reviewed by OMB within 20 working days.  EPA shall provide OMB with an annual report outlining the use of this generic clearance, including the number of surveys, the burden imposed, and a brief description of their purposes (a condition of previous clearances). OMB encourages agency staff to consult with EPA's Customer Service Program (CSP) for advice, survey evaluation, and clearance assistance. OMB reserves the authority to disapprove any individual survey that does not meet the conditions outlined in this ICR. This generic clearance does not extend to "fact finding" for the purpose of regulatory development or enforcement. OMB is relying in large part on EPA's internal review and quality control to develop useful customer information. Finally, this generic ICR approval does not, and is not intended to, cover all types of surveys that EPA may wish to do relating to customer satisfaction -- only the narrow range of surveys discussed above. Surveys that do not meet the terms of clearance for this expedited clearance process may be entirely valid and appropriate surveys, but they should be submitted under the normal PRA clearance process.  The agency is required to display the OMB control number and inform respondents of its legal significance (see 5 CFR 1320.5(b)).”

To fulfill its broad mandate of protecting human health and the environment, EPA provides a wide variety of voluntary public services ranging from information clearinghouses to educational programs and emergency hot lines.  Corresponding to this broad range of services is a diverse universe of EPA customers, loosely defined by E.O. 12862 as “...an individual or entity who is directly served by a department or agency.”

Because Agency services and customers are so diverse, the Agency is requesting a generic clearance that will maximize flexibility in the methods used to fulfill the requirements for the Executive Order and expedite OMB review and clearance process of customer satisfaction surveys.  EPA maintains a central repository of surveys submitted to OMB in the Regulatory Information Division.

OPEI staff assigned to oversee the use of this ICR will continue to be a resource to individuals considering the development of customer satisfaction measurement programs within their organizations, explaining what the customer satisfaction ICR does and does not cover and how to make the best use of it.  EPA ended its National Customer Service Program in 2003.  Since then, the former CSP director (Patricia Bonner) has continued to screen and process survey submittals under this ICR.  In 2005, a second OPEI staff member (Michelle Mandolia) joined the team and was responsible for development of the 2006 and 2009 renewal requests.  She will assume management of all submittals under the ICR.

2(b)	Practical Utility/Uses of the Data

Customer service standards (  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/customerservice/standards.htm"  http://www.epa.gov/customerservice/standards.htm  and   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/customerservice/customerexpect.htm"  http://www.epa.gov/customerservice/customerexpect.htm   provide a basis for performance measurement systems to determine our success in reaching customers and the necessary framework for a management role in the development and use of the survey results.  Information gathered from these surveys will continue to assist EPA to build and validate measurement systems.  Survey results may be used to identify:

1) service needs and expectations of EPA customers;

2) strengths and weaknesses of EPA services;

3) ideas or suggestions for improvement of EPA services from its customers;

4) barriers to achieving customer service standards; and

5) needed changes to customer service standards.

While the information will not be used for regulatory development, the results of customer surveys could lead to small reallocations of resources, revisions in certain Agency processes and policies and development of guidance related to EPA’s customer services.  Ultimately, these changes could result in improvements in services, products and processes the Agency provides to the public, and in turn, enhance the public’s perception of the Agency.

To ensure proper design of EPA customer feedback and customer satisfaction measurement activities, increase the use and application of customer feedback, and build internal capacity to carry out these activities, the CSP coordinated development of “Hearing the Voice of the Customer - Customer Feedback and Customer Satisfaction Measurement Guidelines.”  The “Feedback Guidelines” were first published in November 1998.   The CSP has sponsored training workshops on the application of the Guidelines and continues to refer survey developers to the document (  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/customerservice/feedback/voice.html"  http://www.epa.gov/customerservice/feedback/voice.html )

A five-stage model for feedback: Plan, Construct, Conduct, Analyze and Act, is the foundation for the Guidelines.  The document focuses major attention on the planning phase, with the object being to prevent duplication and poor design, and to eliminate survey work that will not result in actions that can benefit customers and the agency.  A long series of detailed questions supplement the Guidelines to further assist the Feedback Advisors and others.  The document is being used not only by EPA staff but also by individuals in other federal and state agencies to guide their feedback efforts.

The Guidelines and questions are not our only resources.  To help ensure that feedback information used in an appropriate fashion, CSP staff encourage EPA programs to develop surveys consistent with OMB’s Resource Manual for Customer Surveys, EPA’s Survey Management Handbook and to take advantage of survey development training such as that offered by the Joint Program in Survey Methodology (JPSM).  The EPA staff managing use of this ICR will continue to facilitate sharing of information gathered from customer satisfaction surveys, and explore ways to aid programs in survey development.

As a result of past survey feedback, sponsors have taken actions to change to revamp our dockets, to streamline processes, improve Hot Line services and improve web sites and regularly issued documents.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) 	Non-duplication

EPA service providers develop customer satisfaction surveys to learn how their customers perceive their specific services.  Therefore, the information collected will not overlap with other customer satisfaction surveys.  Every effort will be made to channel all customer related surveys through this ICR and to prevent misuse of this ICR for program effectiveness surveys.

3(b) 	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

EPA conformed to the requirement for public notice by publishing a preliminary and final Federal Register Notice concerning our intent under this ICR and requesting comment.

3(c)	Consultations

To estimate ICR usage during the next three years, EPA staff managing use of this ICR requested input from EPA’s Office of Environmental Information and reviewed ICR use over the previous year.  This feedback and information was used to develop the burden estimates described in this document.

3(d) 	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

This information collection could not be conducted less frequently.  EPA will gage customer reactions to and perceptions of services and products the Agency now provides in order to improve them.  Programs will not survey all customers, nor will each program survey every year.  There will be sufficient time between surveys to allow the actions taken in response to customer comments to show results.  There are no technical or legal obstacles to reducing the burden.

3(e)  	General Guidelines

This ICR complies with OMB’s general guidelines for the collection of information.

3(f)	Confidentiality

Not applicable.

3(g) 	Sensitive Questions

No sensitive data will be collected.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)	Respondents/SIC Codes

The Executive Order describes a customer as “...an individual or entity who is directly served by a department or agency.”  The EPA, by the very nature of its mandate, serves very large and diverse groups that receive or are in some way affected by EPA services.  Past EPA customer groups targeted for customer satisfaction surveys include individual citizens, industry/business, states/other governments, and web users.  Because several customer groups use the same services, a survey may reach more than one of the designated customer categories. (The code standard industrial code (SIC) for “General Public” is 99.)

4(b)	Information Requested

(I)   Data items, including record keeping requirements

The Agency will maintain records of the surveys sent to OMB in the ICD.  Offices sponsoring the surveys will retain files of the surveys, responses and analysis.  Since customer satisfaction surveys seek to gauge public opinions on Agency services, the surveys have not and will not involve respondents in extensive searching of existing sources, or reformatting information to submit to the Agency.  The Agency does not anticipate any public record keeping activities under this ICR.

(II) Respondent Activities

EPA customer satisfaction surveys have focused on services (hot lines, dockets, clearinghouse, websites), products (technical assistance, documents, information, training, workshops) and processes (grants, inspections, registrations, permitting).

The surveys conducted under this clearance are of two major types, “quantitative” and “qualitative.” Respondent activities related to “quantitative” are dependent on the survey method and feedback instrument types.  Activities for each follow.

Mail surveys and Customer Feedback Forms (including comment cards, evaluation forms and some web-based surveys).  Both may involve the following activities:

-	Read instructions;

-	Search data sources;

-	Complete questionnaire;

-	Mail questionnaire.

Telephone Surveys

-	Listen to instructions;

-	Answer questions (oral response).

EPA expects to continue its use of these surveys.  Respondent activities related to “qualitative” feedback may include:

Focus Groups or Interviews

(	Listening to group instructions;

(	Participating in discussions;

(	Completing any forms or materials provided at the group session.

EPA sometimes uses focus groups for evaluating various aspects of its programs, to assist in improving and testing of outreach materials and web sites, and to explore new aspects of service delivery.

Training/Education/Outreach products and services.  EPA gathers feedback on its training, outreach products and educational programs through a variety of methods.  The Agency distributes a broad array of materials to the public such as public affairs materials, videos, brochures and fact sheets, software, manuals, guidance material, reports, etc.  It also holds many meetings, workshops and training sessions.  Corresponding to this diverse set of products is a need to make extensive use of a variety of methods to evaluate customer satisfaction.  EPA uses feedback forms in publications and on counters in service delivery areas, focus groups, mail and telephone surveys, and, when publications are available on the Internet, the Agency is using short on-line surveys to solicit customer input.   Offices also ask for feedback on the usefulness of their web sites.

Many of these evaluation activities can use feedback forms to be completed by attendees after an EPA-sponsored event, or by users of documents, software or web sites.  Focus groups are also useful for pre-testing EPA training materials (videos, brochures, etc.) prior to their dissemination to the public.  Mail or telephone surveys help EPA identify a need for changes in training/educational programs, outreach products or services to assure their usefulness to a specific audience.

Hot lines/PICs/clearinghouses.  Hotline evaluations have been conducted on selected samples of hotline users.  By their very nature, hotline customers will most often be surveyed by telephone.  However, more complex surveys may require face-to-face interviews, focus sessions, or mail questionnaires.  In addition, comment cards are used periodically when information packets are mailed by hotline, Public Information Center (PIC) or clearinghouse staff.

Miscellaneous Service Related Activities.  The EPA has a broad network consisting of its headquarters and regional offices, laboratories and field offices that may conduct customer surveys on outreach and other services that they provide.  Most mail and telephone surveys are conducted under this “miscellaneous” category.

To reduce respondent burden, EPA has been expanding use of Internet feedback screens and comment blocks to provide increased opportunity for customers to comment on attributes of our services and web sites.   Fewer offices each year develop lengthy questionnaires.  Focus groups, though they require higher respondent burden, are still used occasionally because of the specificity and the depth of responses that offices/regions can obtain from them.

The redesign of EPA’s web pages required comment buttons on all EPA Internet sites.  The Agency is therefore receiving and will continue to receive informal feedback and questions that are purely voluntary and not solicited specifically through sets of Agency questions of nine or more individuals outside the Federal government.   We plan to continue to manage and act upon such customer information, particularly to improve EPA’s on-line information service on the Internet.

OMB’s Resource Manual for Customer Surveys (dated October 1993) and other relevant guidance documents state that the generic clearance shall be used for “strictly voluntary collections of opinion information from clients that have experience with the program that is the subject of each data collection” and precludes this option for use:

(	by regulatory agencies to survey regulated entities

(	in any situation where a respondent may perceive that a response will result in risks to his interests through potential penalties or loss of benefits

(	for collecting factual information (other than simple identifying information, where needed) or

(	for collecting data from the general public

5.  The Information Collected

Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a) 	Agency Activities.

Agency activities associated with the collection of information include:

Developing survey design, assembling data sources (mailing lists, etc.) and pretesting questionnaire

Internal EPA review and approval of questionnaire

Disseminating questionnaire to respondents

Gathering information from respondents

Answering respondent questions, follow-up

Reviewing data

Recording submissions and analyzing results

Preparing findings

Storing and maintaining results

Making results public via annual reports and the Internet

We do not account for the work of implementing and tracking actions taken as a result of customer feedback.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Information Management.

Prior to initiating any survey, sponsoring programs must seek final approval from OMB.  EPA staff managing this ICR will continue to encourage survey sponsors to develop instruments using the 12 step process outlined in OMB’s Resource Manual for Customer Satisfaction Surveys (dated October 1993).  The following internal review process [see also Exhibit 1 for more details on the internal process], independent of the originating program office, will continue:

To obtain approval, sponsoring programs must submit a clearance package consisting of a memorandum from the program or office director and a copy of the survey instrument through the staff managing this ICR to the Information Collections Division in the Office of Environmental Information that will forward acceptable packages to OMB.

The memorandum must address the following :

Survey title, identification of survey originator (Office, point of contact/phone number)

Description and intended purpose of the survey as it relates to EPA customers

Methodology and use of anticipated results

Collection schedule, follow-up plans

Costs and burden to the Agency and respondents, and the number of respondents

-	The memorandum will vary in length and detail, depending on the complexity of the survey.  ICD staff, experienced with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), will review each submission to ensure that it meets the requirements of the PRA and any conditions of the generic approval, and may reject any proposed customer survey that does not meet the criteria outlined in Section 3(b).

- 	Statistical methods will not be used for any of the collections covered under this generic clearance.

-	ICD will submit surveys and attached materials to OMB for an expedited review and determination

-	Sponsoring organizations within the EPA should maintain records according to each survey schedule.  In general, survey results should be maintained for three years or until after follow-up activities have been completed.

EPA expects use of five basic types of survey instruments for 2009-2012:  feedback (to include comment cards, feedback and short evaluation forms), web based questionnaires, mail surveys, telephone surveys/short interviews and focus groups/long interviews.  These are displayed in Table 5-1.

5 (c)	Small Entity Flexibility.

Not applicable.

5 (d)	Collection Schedule.

This will be dependent upon the needs of each originator of a survey.  Schedules for customer surveys will be documented in the package submitted to the Information Collections Division for review and submittal to OMB.

Table 5-1 Projected Use of Surveys 2009-2012

Survey Type	Total Uses 2009-2012

Web based

33

Feedback/Comment/Evaluation Form

15

Mail/detailed evaluation form

3

Telephone

3

Focus Group

2

Total

56

6. Estimating the Burden and the Cost of the Collection

6(a)   Estimating Respondent Burden.

The estimate was based on the projected survey plans of EPA programs as summarized in Table 6-1.  Table 6-2 summarizes respondent burden over the three years by survey type.

Recent feedback from EPA programs suggests continuing interest in using customer satisfaction surveys as part of the overall long-term strategy of these organizations.  The EPA estimates 477 hours of respondent burden on the part of 5,240 individuals each year from 2009 to 2012.

The EPA program staff planning to use this generic clearance know that burden should be as low as possible in keeping with the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Survey designs will be simple, convenient, easy to respond to, and clear in content and purpose.  Few long surveys will be designed; most surveys will be of limited scope and require only a short time to complete.  Many comments card/feedback forms will be used, and programs will continue to increase their use of web based feedback.

Section 5(b) describes the types and number of uses for five types of survey instruments.  If programs succeed in their expanded use of Internet for customer satisfaction surveys, burden could be further reduced.  EPA may achieve additional reductions by eliminating some planned surveys through sharing results of completed surveys across the Agency.

Table 6-1

EPA CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEYS

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST

BURDEN TABLE 2009 - 2012

Feedback Instrument	Number of uses each year	(Number of uses each year x number of people responding to each)=Total People

Responding annually

	(Respondent time x number of people responding)=total annual hours

Total people responding 2009-2012

 	Total hours 2009-2012

Web based/e-mail  based surveys	10	(10 x 200)=

2,000 people	(5 min. x 2,000)=

180 hours	6,000 people	540 hours

OEI online surveys	1	(1 x 2,640)=

2,640 people	(5 min. x 2,640)=

220 hours	7,920 people	660 hours

Feedback/Comment/ Evaluation Form	5	(5 x 100)=

500 people	(5 min. x 500)=

42 hours	1,500 people	126 hours

Mail survey/detailed evaluation form	1	(1 x 60)=

60 people	(10 min. x 60)=

10 hours	180 people	30 hours

Telephone survey	1	(1 x 30)=

30 people	(10 min. x 30)=

5 hours	90 people	15 hours

Focus groups	.67	(.67 x 15)=

9.65 people	(2 hours x 9.65)=

19 hours	30 people	60 hours

TOTALS	18.67	5,239.65 people	477 hours	15,720 people	1,431 hours

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

I	Labor Costs

Since the respondents represent such a diverse group, EPA based wage estimates on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor weekly earnings of wage and salary workers as reported on April 16, 2009, in the BLS news release “Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers: First Quarter 2009”   The weekly earnings are $738; this computes to $18.45 per hour for a 40 hour week.  The hourly rate is adjusted by a fringe benefit and overhead rate of 110 percent, resulting in a total loaded rate of $38.75 per hour.

There is no need for “developing, acquiring, or utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating or verifying information,” “....disclosing and providing information,” “adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions or requirements,” “training personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information,” “searching data sources,” nor a need for the respondents to keep records.   Burden activities include only a few steps: reviewing instructions, responding, and sending (e-mail or mail) responses when the surveys are not performed in person or over the telephone.

 Table 6-2 displays the annual burden estimates for respondents and total estimated respondent costs.

Table 6-2 Respondent Universe, Total Burden and Costs

Survey Type

3 years   Surveys

Respondents

Total Hours

Total Cost

Mail

3

180	30	$1,162.50

Telephone

3	90	15	$581.25

Feedback cards, evaluations + Web-based

48	15,420	1,326	$51,382.50

Focus Groups

2	30	60	$2,325.00

Totals	56	15,720	1,431	$55,451.25

II	Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

Not applicable.

III	Capital/Start-up vs. Operating and Maintenance (O & M) Costs

Not applicable.

IV	Annualizing Capital Costs

Not applicable.

6 (c)	 Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

Tables 6-3 through 6-7 provide the annual estimates for agency burden associated with developing, disseminating customer surveys and analyzing the results.  Wage estimates were divided into three categories of labor:  Management (GS-15), Technical (GS-13), and Clerical (GS-7).

OPEI and Information Collection staffs will be sharing information and survey instruments across the Agency.  Feedback Advisors will also use this information to assist people.  Costs per instrument should continue to be reduced as Agency staff members gain experience with gathering feedback through the Internet, and with developing and analyzing surveys of other types.  However, since these cost reductions cannot be accurately estimated, aggregate annual costs that follow do not reflect these cost reductions to the Agency.

Table 6-3.  Agency Burden/Cost for Telephone Surveys

Activities

Manager @ $61

Burden

Technical

@ $44

  Hours

Clerical @ $21

Total Hrs.

Total Cost

Developing survey

Obtaining EPA approval

Gathering information

Reviewing data; follow-ups

Analyzing results

Storing and maintaining results

Preparing survey findings

1.5

1.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

  40.0

    4.0

  60.0

  16.0

  80.0

    4.0

  80.0

20.0

  1.0

20.0

  8.0

  0.0

  5.0

  8.0

 61.5

   6.0

 80.0

 24.0

 82.0

   9.0

 89.0

 $2,271.5

    $258

 $3,060

    $872

  $3,642

    $281

   $3,749

Totals hours

Category costs

5.5           $335.5

284.0

$12,496

62.0

$1,302

351.5

	$14,133.5

Table 6-4.  Agency Burden/Cost for Mail Surveys and Evaluation Forms

Activities

Manager @ $61

Burden

Technical

@ $44

  Hours

Clerical @ $21

Total Hours

Total Cost

Developing survey

Obtaining EPA approval

Gathering information

Reviewing data

Analyzing results

Storing and maintaining results

Preparing survey findings

1.5

1.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

5.0

  80.0

    4.0

  40.0

    8.0

  40.0

    2.0

  40.0

    8.0

    1.0

  16.0

    8.0

    0.0

    3.0

    8.0

 89.5

   6.0

 56.0

 16.0

 42.0

   5.0

 53.0

 $3,779.5

   $258

 $2,096

    $520

  $1,882

    $151

  $2,233

Totals hours

Category costs

9.5

$579.5

214.0

$9,416

  44.0

$924

267.5

	$10,919.5

Table 6-5.  Agency Burden/Cost for Customer Feedback Forms/Internet Screens*

Activities

Manager @ $61

Burden

Technical

@ $44

  Hours

Clerical @ $21

Total Hours

Total Cost

Developing feedback instruments

Obtaining EPA approval

Gathering information

Reviewing data

Analyzing results

Storing and maintaining results

Preparing survey findings

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

20.0

 4.0

20.0

  8.0

20.0

  2.0

20.0

  2.0

  1.0

16.0

  8.0

  0.0

  3.0

  8.0

 23.0

  6.0

 36.0

 16.0

 22.0

   5.0

 30.0

 $983

 $258

 $1,216

 $520

 $1,002

 $151

 $1,170

Total hours

Category costs

6.0

$366

94.0

$4,136

38.0

$798

138.0

	$5,300

* Internet feedback forms, comment cards, short publication/meeting/workshop evaluation forms and short web-based surveys are grouped into this one category.

Table 6-6.  Agency Burden/Cost for Focus Groups

Activities

Manager @ $61

Burden

Technical

@ $44

  Hours

Clerical @ $21

Total

Hours

Total Cost

Developing Focus Sessions

Obtaining EPA approval

Conducting Focus Groups

Reviewing data

Analyzing results

Storing and maintaining result

Preparing findings

1.5

1.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

3.0

40.0

  4.0

  8.0

  4.0

20.0

  2.0

20.0

40.0

  2.0

  8.0

  4.0

  0.0

  3.0

  8.0

 81.5

   7.0

 16.0

   8.0

 21.0

   5.0

 31.0

 $2,691.5

   $279

   $520

   $260

   $941

   $151

 $1,231

Totals hours

Category costs

6.5

$396.5

98.0

$4,312

65.0

$1,365

169.5

	$6,073.5

Table 6-7.  Aggregate Agency Table for Annual Burden/Cost

Survey Collection Type

Annual # of

Collections

Annual

Cost

Annual Hours

Telephone

Mail

Feedback (cards, web-based, e-mail & evaluation forms)

Focus Groups

1

1

16

.67

14,133.5

10,919.5

84,800

4,069.25

351.5

267.5

2,208

113.57

Totals

18.67	113,922.25	2,940.57

6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Burden

Table 6-1 provides information on each survey by instrument type, number of respondents expected, and burden hours requested per survey.   Table 6-8 summarizes the total burden and costs for respondents, and the Agency.   Activities have been grouped to reflect the various types of surveys and the total respondents expected for each instrument type.  In all cases, the activities performed remain only the time required to read, respond and transmit the survey instruments.  Burden estimates were calculated using the median weekly earnings of the nation's full-time wage and salary workers in the first quarter of 2009, $738, or $18.45 per hour for a 40 hour week.  The hourly rate is adjusted by a fringe benefit and overhead rate of 110 percent, resulting in a total loaded rate of $38.75 per hour.

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

I	Respondent Tally

See Table 6-1.

II	The Agency Tally

Table 6-7 provides the Agency Tally estimates.  The total EPA tally for the three-year period is $113,922.25.

III	Variations in the Annual Bottom Line

EPA burden hour projections are:  2,940 hours annually.

IV 	Reasons for Change in Burden

Within the Agency, fewer organizations than in past years have decided to do customer satisfaction surveys.  We anticipate this trend to continue during the next three years, and expect more organizations to use web-based or short surveys.  Offices and regions will be using a variety of techniques, but will repeatedly use the same survey instruments.  The number of respondent burden hours will continue to drop as more organizations use web-based surveys and feedback options, rather than longer and more formal survey instruments.   Respondent burden hours are estimated to be 477 hours annually.

Table 6-8 Aggregate EPA and Respondent Costs

   		Surveys        EPA hours       EPA costs        Respondent hours   Respondent costs

2009-10	18.67	2940.57	$113,922.5	477	$18,483.75

2010 -11	18.67	2940.57	$113,922.5	477	$18,483.75

2011 -12	18.67	2940.57	$113,922.5	477	$18,483.75

Total	56.01	8,821.7	$341,767.5	1,431	$55,451.25

       Three year total respondents: 15,720

V	Burden Statement

The following statement applies overall to the planned surveys for the next three years:

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average  .091 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering information, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the 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.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OA-2006-0074, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OEI Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-2006-0074 and OMB Control Number 2090-0019 in any correspondence.

EXHIBITS

A factsheet generally available throughout the agency describes the process for satisfaction survey approval under the Customer Satisfaction ICR.  A copy is provided as Exhibit 1.

OMB approved survey instruments follow as Exhibits 2 -4.

All future surveys under this ICR will continue to include, on or near the first page of the survey, a burden statement specific to that survey explaining the number of hours/minutes per year per respondent and what that burden entails (e.g.: Respondent burden for this survey is estimated to be five minutes for reading and responding to the questions.) as well as the following paragraphs.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the 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.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Include the EPA ICR number 1711.04 and OMB control number 2090-2119 in any correspondence.

All future surveys under this ICR are to include the following OMB number and expiration date information at the top right hand corner of the survey’s first page:

OMB CONTROL NO: 2090-0019

EXPIRATION DATE:     [TBA]

Exhibit 1

The Process for Clearing Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys at EPA

ICR # 1711.05

Brief Description

This Information Collection Request [ICR] allows for rapid Office of Management and Budget [OMB] clearance for satisfaction surveys that meet certain criteria.

TERMS OF CLEARANCE: As stated in OMB’s existing terms of clearance: “The generic ICR is approved to allow the expedited OMB clearance of EPA customer satisfaction surveys that are simple, straightforward, and narrowly focused to:

Current or former customers of EPA products or services;

The level of satisfaction with an actual service or product provided by EPA that they have utilized; and

Their recommendations for improving said product or service.”

Basic Process for Satisfaction Survey Approval

All surveys must clear through National Center for Environmental Innovation (NCEI) staff, before they are sent to the Office of Environmental Information for transmittal to OMB.  Surveys sent to OMB directly will not be cleared.  Before starting the approval process, discuss what you want to learn from your customers and how you plan to use that information with Pat/Michelle and look over successful/approved survey packages they provide.

Steps in the process:

You contact Pat/Michelle to tell them you want to use the Custom Satisfaction ICR.

Pat or Michelle sends you the full Terms of Clearance explaining the specific uses of the ICR as well as some examples of approved survey packages.

You review the samples and develop a draft set of questions you’d like to ask.

You submit those questions electronically to NCEI staff.

NCEI staff review the questions and send you comments.

You finalize your survey, develop a transmittal memo and send the package to Pat/Michelle electronically.

NCEI staff review the package and send you comments if anything needs to be changed.

Once they accept the final version of the package, they will send it electronically to OEI.

OEI accepts the survey package unchanged or suggests changes.

You, and NCEI staff consider the suggestions, make appropriate modifications and NCEI staff electronically forward the final package to OEI.

You send a hard copy of the final package with a signed memo to NCEI staff.

 NCEI staff signs and sends the printed package to OEI to transmit to OMB.

OMB has up to 20 working days to clear the survey package.

OEI receives approval or comments from OMB and provides the response to NCEI staff and you.

You incorporate OMB’s suggested changes and resubmit through NCEI staff who forward the revised package to OEI.

OEI sends the final package to OMB for approval.

OMB approves the package and notifies OEI.

OEI notifies NCEI staff and you.

You launch your survey!

Exhibit 2

U.S. EPA Grants Management and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Rule

Training and Technical Assistance Initiative for Tribes, Tribal Consortia, and Insular Areas

Training Evaluation Form

EPA ICR No. 1711.05

OMB Control No. 2090-0019

EXPIRATION DATE: 8/31/2009

Please answer the following to the best of your ability:

					

The materials distributed were useful						

This training will improve my performance on my job					 

The trainers were knowledgeable						

The quality of instruction was good						

The amount of class participation was good						

The amount of class interaction was good						

Adequate time was provided for questions and discussion				 	

	Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied Satisfied	Very Satisfied	Don't Know/NA

	1	2	3	4	5	6

Overall, how satisfied are you with the services you have received from National PETE for this training?						

Overall, how satisfied are you with the products you have received from National PETE for this training?						

How satisfied were you with the courtesy of National PETE Instructors/Staff?						

How satisfied were you with how National PETE responded to your training needs?						

Additional comments/observations:

How would you describe yourself (please check all that apply)?

	  Grants Specialist

	  Tribal Financial Officer

	  Tribal Administrative employee

	  U.S. Tribal Env. Dept. Employee

  U.S. EPA OGD Employee

  U.S. EPA DBE Employee

Other:

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average five (5) minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggestions for reducing the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OEI Collection Strategies Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number (1711.05) and the OMB control number (2090-0019) in any correspondence.

Exhibit 3

EPA ICR No. 1711.05

OMB Control No. 2090-0019

EXPIRATION DATE: 8/31/2009

Customer Satisfaction Survey of National Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) Conference

How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the overall content of the conference?

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following aspects of the conference (Very dissatisfied, dissatisfied, satisfied, very satisfied):

Logistics – directions, check-in, etc.

Location/Venue

Peer-to-Peer Networking

Direct Communication with EPA

Food & Beverage

Hotel

Audiovisuals/Handouts

In your opinion, the overall length of the conference was:

Too short

Too long

Just right

In your opinion, the lengths of the plenary sessions were:

Too short

Too long

Just right

In your opinion, the lengths of the breakout sessions were:

Too short

Too long

Just right

How satisfied were you with the following sessions, in terms of their ability to help you do your work (Very dissatisfied, dissatisfied, satisfied, very satisfied)?

Overview of the new PESP

A particular plenary session (name which one)

A particular breakout session (name which one)

Facilitated Feedback Session: Listening to Our Members

Networking opportunities during breaks

Other

What information or opportunity was least useful to your work?

Overview of the new PESP

A particular plenary session (name which one)

A particular breakout session (name which one)

Facilitated Feedback Session: Listening to Our Members

Networking opportunities during breaks

Other

How satisfied were you with the content of the session “The New PESP Overview?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

How satisfied were you with the speaker for the session “The New PESP Overview?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

10.	How satisfied were you with the content of “PESP Member Success Story and Discussion?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

11.	How satisfied were you with the speaker for the “PESP Member Success Story and Discussion?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

12.	How satisfied were you with the content of the plenary session “Leveraging the Power of Public-Private Partnerships?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

13.	How satisfied were you with the speaker for the plenary session “Leveraging the Power of Public-Private Partnerships?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

14.	How satisfied were you with the content of the panel session “Sustainable Agriculture: Growers Protecting Their Most Valuable Resource – the Earth?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

15.	How satisfied were you with the panelists for the panel session “Sustainable Agriculture: Growers Protecting Their Most Valuable Resource – the Earth?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

16.	How satisfied were you with the content of the panel session “Community IPM: An Integrative Approach to Reducing Risk Where We Live, Work, and Play?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

17.	How satisfied were you with the panelists for the panel session “Community IPM: An Integrative Approach to Reducing Risk Where We Live, Work, and Play?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

18.	How satisfied were you with the content of the panel session “Restoring the Chesapeake Bay: Opportunities for Collaboration?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

19.	How satisfied were you with the panelists for the panel session “Restoring the Chesapeake Bay: Opportunities for Collaboration?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

20.	How satisfied were you with the content of the “PESP Strategy Workshop?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very dissatisfied

N/A

21.	How satisfied were you with the facilitation of the “PESP Strategy Workshop?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

22.	How satisfied were you with the content of the session “Listening to Our Members?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

23.	How satisfied were you with the facilitation of the session “Listening to Our Members?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

24.	How satisfied were you with the session “Other Opportunities for PESP Members?”

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

Would you attend the 2010 ESB Annual Conference?

Yes

No

What kind of topics would you like to see covered in the future?

27.	Please include any additional comments regarding the conference:

28.	Do you currently receive the PESPwire via e-mail?

	a.	Yes

		b.	No

29.	How satisfied are you with the content of PESPwire?

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

N/A

Are there any types of information you would like to see included in the PESPwire that are not currently included?

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average four (4) minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggestions for reducing the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OEI Collection Strategies Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number (1711.05) and the OMB control number (2090-0019) in any correspondence.

Exhibit 4

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency		  HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/ppic/  www.epa.gov/ppic/   (Web Site)

EPA West (Mail code 7409-M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(E-mail)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW<PHONE_NUMBER> (Reference and Referral)

Washington, DC 20460-0001<PHONE_NUMBER> (Fax)

PPIC Customer Satisfaction Survey

Your response is important to us. We will use this information evaluate and improve PPIC services. Thank you!

1. Please indicate the type of information you were seeking. (Please select all that apply)

___ Environmental Information

___ Health Information

___ Laws, regulations, and other legal guidance	___ EPA publication (online version)

___ EPA publication (print version)

___ Other _____________________

2.  Which PPIC service(s) did you use? (Please select all that apply)

___ PPIC Web Site

___ Reference and referral services (telephone, mail, e-mail, fax, walk-in)

___ Document order

3. How useful did you find the PPIC web site? (Please place a check in front of your choice)

___ 1     ___ 2     ___ 3     ___ 4     ___ N/A       (1 = not useful    4 = very useful)

4. How useful was the information on the web site?

(Please place a check in front of your choice)

___ 1     ___ 2     ___ 3     ___ 4     ___ N/A       (1 = not useful    4 = very useful)

5. How helpful did you find the PPIC reference and referral service?

(Please place a check in front of your choice)

___ 1     ___ 2     ___ 3     ___ 4     ___ N/A       (1 = not helpful    4 = very helpful)

6. How useful was the information you received from the PPIC reference and referral service? (Please place a check in front of your choice)

___ 1     ___ 2     ___ 3     ___ 4     ___ N/A       (1 = not useful    4 = very useful)

7. How useful did you find the information in the document(s) ordered?

(Please place a check in front of your choice)

___ 1     ___ 2     ___ 3     ___ 4     ___ N/A       (1 = not useful    4 = very useful)

8. Which best describes you? (Please select one choice)

___ Other Federal

___ State/Local/Tribal

___ Industry

___ Consultant/Law

___ Media	___ Public Interest

___ Academic

___ Public

___ International

___ Other

9. How frequently do you use the PPIC web site? (Please select one choice)

___ first time user

___ 1-3 times/month

___ 3+ times/month

___ N/A

10. If given the option, I prefer:  (Please select one choice)

___ on line versions of EPA publications

___ to order print versions of EPA publications

___ CD-ROM versions

___ N/A

11. What would you change about the PPIC web site or PPIC services?

fold here 		fold here

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering information, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggestions for reducing the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Information Collections Division, Office of Environmental Information, United States Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460; and to the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management & Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA  ICR No. 1711.05, and the OMB control No. 2090-0019, and Expiration Date, 08/31/2009, in any correspondence.

?

_

b

~

€

„

œ

ß

á

ë

<

_

ƒ

„

½

ä

5

^

‚

ƒ

¿

ë

3

=

Z

[

\

]

~

ž

¾

Ê

ê

õ

 ԀĤ␆ഁ׆Ā褐ༀꂄᄅやㇽĤ葞֠葠ﴰ摧亅F

h

ᄀ傄ㄙĤ葠ᥐ摧烖|

h

h

ᄀ킄㄂Ĥ葠ː摧烖|

ԀĤ␆ᄁ킄㄂Ĥ葠ː摧䳖¨	ԀĤ␆㄁Ĥ摧䳖¨

㄀Ĥ摧烖|

฀ꚄㇿĤ葝ﾦ摧烖|

ԀĤ␆ᄁ킄㄂Ĥ葠ː摧亅F	ԀĤ␆㄁Ĥ摧亅F

hWI

ԀĤ␆༁킄ᄂやㇽĤ葞ː葠ﴰ摧潗£	ԀĤ␆㄁Ĥ摧潗£

摧烖|	ԀĤ␆㄁Ĥ摧烖|̀Ĥ␅؁Ĥ␱愁Ĥ摧烖| ̀Ĥ␱愁Ĥ摧烖|

ԀĤ␆ᄁ킄㄂Ĥ葠ː摧઒#	ԀĤ␆㄁Ĥ摧઒#

h

h

h

ᄀ킄㄂Ĥ葠ː摧烖|

h

h

愀Ĥ摧棙-

㄀Ĥ摧烖|

阂x혈ꘆ䃿Ⰻ᠐Е阚㌞$騆

阂x혈ꘆ䃿Ⰻ᠐Е阚㌞$騆

hä

옍)

옍)

B*

 h6

 h6

B*

B*

B*

B*

옍)

B*

yt6

yt6

yt6

yt6

yt6

yt6

yt6

yt6

yt6

yt6

yt6

yt6

yt6

! h›9

yt6

yt6

B*

  h6

&

„0ý1$7$8$H$`„0ýgd6

$

`„ þgd6

阂l鐇׍혈0鐂˿對(渆

al, software, etc).  Internet (web based) surveys also fit into this category.  Mail surveys may involve more extensive questionnaires and may require more rigorous statistical sampling methodology to evaluate a certain group’s or groups’ perceptions about a service the Agency offers.

 EPA interprets this to preclude any EPA purposes of regulatory development or enforcement.

 EPA interprets this to mean random sampling of the general public in a “market research” mode.

 For customer feedback forms and short questionnaires, a one page memorandum should be sufficient.  Mail or telephone surveys making use of statistical sampling must include the statistician’s name/phone, and a brief description of the statistical aspects of the survey, such as the statistical approach, population coverage, survey design, precision requirement, and pretests/pilot tests.

	Agency hourly wages estimates were made using the 2009 figure, step 5 for each grade.

 PAGE

 PAGE   27

Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse

US Environmental Protection Agency

EPA West (Mail code 7409-M)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington DC 20460-0001


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61641]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19239]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98265; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-040]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the
VanEck Bitcoin Trust Under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust
Shares

August 31, 2023.
    On June 30, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
list and trade shares of the VanEck Bitcoin Trust under BZX Rule
14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares. On July 11, 2023, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1, which amended and replaced the proposed
rule change in its entirety. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
July 19, 2023.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97903 (July 13,
2023), 88 FR 46320. Comments on the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2023-040/srcboebzx2023040.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is September 2, 2023. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues
raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates October 17, 2023, as the date by
which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-040), as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19239 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P