|
|
|
Supporting Statement for a Revision to an Information Collection Request (ICR) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
Executive Summary
Title: Transportation and Climate Division (TCD) Grant Program Reporting Templates: Supplemental Project Application Template and Project Reporting Templates for DERA, CSB, CHD, and CP (Revision)
EPA ICR No. 2793.02
OMB Control No. 2060-0754
Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0492
Short Characterization/Abstract
This supporting statement is for a revision to an existing Information Collection Request (ICR) for four mobile source related grant programs administered by the Transportation and Climate Division (TCD), within Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ). These four programs include: Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) Grant Program, Clean School Bus (CSB) Grant Program, Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles (CHDV) Grant Program, and Clean Ports Grant Program.
The EPA currently uses ICR No. 2060-0754 to collect information for most major elements of grants administration for these programs, but to reflect the final program design and to further ease the burden for applicants, awardees, and Agency staff, the Agency needs to update this ICR to be able to use improved versions of previously approved instruments and collect information via three new reporting instruments to reflect final program design. This ICR revision aims to enhance project reporting instruments to ensure that the project reporting templates align with the final program design and requirements and incorporate user feedback received during the application period for the CHDV and Clean Ports Grant Programs.
EPA uses approved procedures and forms to collect necessary information to operate its grant programs and has been providing grants under DERA since 2008. EPA launched the 2024 Clean Port Program in late winter 2024, the 2024 Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Program in early spring 2024, and the 2024 DERA grant program in summer 2024, and is overseeing the 2023 Clean School Bus Grantees, who began reporting in mid-2024.
While these programs each have unique statutory requirements, there are key aspects that unite them as mobile source emissions reduction efforts, and by combining them as a cohort of programs under one ICR, EPA aims to enrich data quality across our programs and to ease burden on applicants and awardees considering applying for multiple programs and agency staff overseeing multiple programs. Additionally, collecting data via these program-specific, fillable data templates will enhance the Agency’s oversight of these projects as directed by Congress. The data collected in these forms will provide substantial documentation to verify each project’s programmatic compliance as well as support the Agency’s oversight commitment to prevent any potential fraud, waste, and abuse. Further, doing so will also provide critical real-world performance data that the Agency would not otherwise be able to procure, which can support work related to OTAQ’s mission to protect human health and the environment by reducing emissions from mobile sources and advancing clean fuels and technology. This mission also aligns with Pillar 1: Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American of Administrator Lee Zeldin’s Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative.
Summary of Burden and Cost
To estimate public burden for the four grants programs, EPA used its best professional judgment and feedback from program participants in 2024 to estimate the amount of time required for state, local and private applicants to fill out the data templates for each grant program. EPA had determined that the information collected on these instruments is the minimum information necessary to ensure that each program can verify project eligibility, ensure that activities are completed in accordance with each program’s respective program guidance and statutory requirements, and ensure fiscal control and accountability for EPA funds, as well as to deter waste, fraud, and abuse. As shown in Table 1, EPA estimates approximately 1,000 respondents will spend approximately 8,200 hours annually fulfilling grant reporting requirements at an annual labor cost of approximately $500,000. Over the entire ICR period, total burden amounts to approximately 24,500 hours at a labor cost of approximately $1.5M. There are no capital or operation and maintenance costs associated with this action. This revised ICR reflects the final program design for Clean Ports and Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Programs, improvements in instrument design, and the current status of these programs, which altogether lower the estimated temporal burden by about 40% and labor cost burdens for participants by about 40% compared to the initial ICR burden estimate for instruments to support these programs.
Table 1: Updated Summary of Burden & Cost Estimation for Revised ICR
Grant Program |
Average Number of Respondents per Year over ICR Period |
Average Annual Temporal Cost for Participants over ICR Period (2025-2027; hrs.) |
Average Annual Cost for Participants over ICR Period (2025-2027; hrs.) |
Total Hours Over ICR Period |
Total Cost Over ICR Period |
DERA Grant Program (National, Tribal, and State) |
623 |
4,588 |
$283,138 |
13,763 |
$849,413 |
Clean School Bus Grant Program |
267 |
2,580 |
$148,366 |
7,741 |
$445,097 |
Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Grant Program |
70 |
526 |
$33,145 |
1,578 |
$99,435 |
Clean Ports Program |
55 |
455 |
$28,431 |
1,365 |
$85,293 |
Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Grants |
30 |
138 |
$8,778 |
414 |
$26,333 |
Clean Ports Zero Emission Technology Deployment Grants |
25 |
317 |
$19,653 |
950 |
$58,960 |
Total |
1,015 |
8,149 |
$493,079 |
24,447 |
$1,479,238 |
Supporting Statement
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.
This ICR is necessary to ensure that all essential information for TCD’s four grant programs, DERA, Clean School Bus, Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles, and Clean Ports, can be collected from applicants and award recipients, in accordance with 2 CFR 200 and EPA’s implementation of 2 CFR 200 at 2 CFR 1500 “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”.
The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRA-Mod) requires agencies to set goals, measure performance against those goals and report publicly on progress. As a mechanism to achieve this goal, agencies must build and publish an Annual Performance Report (APR), which includes measurable goals, targets, and actuals from the prior fiscal year for all EPA programs. EPA publishes the APR each year alongside the Congressional Justification submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Information collected for DERA, CSB, CHDV, and Clean Ports via the data templates covered by this ICR will be included in the APR.
The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) requires the federal government to transform its spending information into open data, and link federal contract, loan, and grant spending information to federal programs to enable more transparent public examination of federal spending. To enable public scrutiny of federal investments, DERA, CSB, CHDV, and Clean Ports will need to collect information from recipients about the location of each funded project and its associated place(s) of performance.
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act) provides a federal framework for agencies to work with stakeholders to promote a culture of continuous learning, and decision-making using the best available evidence. This legislation asks agencies to (1) produce measures and indicators; (2) use data to improve day-to-day operations; (3) advance the rigorous use of evidence as a routine part of planning and budget development; and (4) incorporate evidence in decision-making and reporting. Information collected for DERA, CSB, CHDV, and Clean Ports Program via the data templates covered by this ICR will help develop an evidence base to address the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of the program’s activities, which in turn will address needs related to organizational learning, ongoing program management, performance management, strategic management, interagency and private sector coordination, internal and external oversight, and accountability.
The Build America, Buy America Act (BABA; Pub. L. No. 117-58, §§ 70901-52) requires that each covered Federal agency shall ensure that "none of the funds made available for a Federal financial assistance program for infrastructure, including each deficient program, may be obligated for a project unless all of the iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States." Information collected via this ICR will help ensure that awardees of the DERA, CSB, CHDV, and Clean Ports Program comply with BABA requirements and, when appropriate, meet the requirements for obtaining a project-level waiver, pursuant to Section 70914(c) of BABA.
Altogether, using these data templates will expedite processing and enhance data quality, while assuring that each program can verify project eligibility, ensure that activities are completed in accordance with each program’s respective program guidance and statutory requirements (listed below), and ensure fiscal control and accountability for EPA funds, as well as to deter waste, fraud, and abuse.
DERA State, National, and Tribal Programs: These programs are authorized by
Title VII, Subtitle G (§791 to 797) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58), as amended by the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-364) and Division S (§101) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260), codified at 42 U.S.C. 16131 et seq, provides the EPA with the authority to award grants, rebates or low-cost revolving loans on a competitive basis to eligible entities to fund the costs of a retrofit technology that significantly reduces diesel emissions from mobile sources through implementation of a certified engine configuration, verified technology, or emerging technology.
Clean School Bus: This program is authorized by
Title XI, §71101 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58). The new program, like DERA, allows for rebates and grants for school bus replacement projects that reduce emissions. Under 42 U.S.C. § 16091(b)(8), EPA is required to submit an annual report to Congress evaluating the implementation of the CSB program. Congress requires EPA to annually report on the number of applications received, quantity and number of grants and rebates, location of awards, details regarding the buses being replaced, as well as the new buses that replace them, electric charging infrastructure (for electric buses only), and the criteria used to select recipients for the CSB program.
Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles: This program is authorized by
Title VI, §60101 and §60102 of the Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law-117-169). This program allows for awards of grants and rebates to replacing eligible Class 6 and 7 heavy-duty vehicles that are not a zero-emission vehicle with zero-emission vehicles, as well as for the purchase, installation, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure needed to charge, fuel, or maintain zero-emission vehicles, workforce development and training to support the maintenance, charging, fueling, and operation of zero-emission vehicles; and planning and technical activities to support the adoption and deployment of zero-emission vehicles.
Clean Ports Program: This program is authorized by
Title VI, §60101 and §60102 of the Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law-117-169). This program allows for awards of grants and rebates to purchase or install zero-emission port equipment or technology, conduct relevant planning or permitting in connection with the purchase or installation of zero-emission port-equipment or technology; and develop qualified climate action plans.
2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.
The purpose of the instruments in this collection, including supplemental application templates and grant reporting templates, is to allow EPA project officers and program staff to verify and evaluate awardee eligibility pre-award, and performance post award against the program’s requirements and priorities. This periodic and final reporting and evaluation is a critical step in OTAQ’s oversight of grant lifecycles and is indicative of an awardee’s demonstrated performance, future grant award potential, and a critical source of feedback for informing future funding cycles. Data entered into these templates by applicants and awardees shall be extracted and stored into internal Agency databases to track program performance. Relevant excerpts from the database shall be extracted and shared on relevant program websites and reports to Congress to communicate our program’s activity with external stakeholders. Data collected via these instruments thus far has been used to support the implementation of these programs, including the successful application and selection of recipients of two new IRA funded programs.
The information to be collected under this ICR spans seven general categories that are largely similar across funding programs, and as well as a subset of program-specific fields.1
Applicant and Recipient Information: This category includes fields related to applicant and/or awardee contact information, entity affiliation (where applicable), and additional details to understand ‘who’ is involved with the implementation of each project.
Project Costs and Budget: This category includes financial and fiscal details related to the grant’s entire lifecycle, including equipment cost, installation costs, and additional funds consumed by eligible activities under the respective program. Periodic, semi-annual reports derive total expenditures to date and remaining balances which indicate grant budget management. These periodic reports highlight a running cost estimate throughout the project’s lifecycle and presents demonstrated grant management potential towards future grant applications.
Programmatic and Administrative Details: This category includes key administrative data fields required to administer the grant (such as Grant ID, Grants.gov ID, SAM.gov Unique Entity ID, etc.) and programmatic data fields required to align with agency and program priorities and polices (e.g., project sustainability, workforce development).
Project Outputs: This category features fillable fields about planned and actual outcomes, grant deliverables outlined in the proposal, and environmental benefits (including emissions reduced by the project).
Vehicles & Equipment Details: This category is a subset of ‘Outputs’ and includes technical details about the equipment and/or vehicles addressed by the program, including new vehicles, upgrades to old vehicles, supporting zero emissions fueling and/or charging infrastructure, and additional details about respective vehicle and equipment activity to be able to tabulate and report on emissions reductions.
Project Location: This category provides details about projects’ place(s) of performance, where new vehicles operate, where old equipment still operates (if not scrapped), and additional fields needed to contextualize those locations.
Information to Process Project-Specific BABA waiver requests: In accordance with Section 70914(c) of BABA, EPA may waive Buy America preference where EPA finds that: applying the domestic content procurement preference would be inconsistent with the public interest (a "public interest waiver"); the types of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials are not produced domestically in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory quality (a "nonavailability waiver"); or the inclusion of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials produced domestically will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent (an "unreasonable cost waiver"). To apply for a waiver, interested program participants should provide the following data to EPA: the type of waiver requested; administrative details of the award (e.g., award ID, project location); list of relevant products and their type, cost (total and per unit), copies of bids and/or quotes, country of origin, manufacturer, technical specifications, availability timeframe, Product Service Code (PSC), and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code; justification statement supporting BABA waiver type; and summary of diligence conducted in search of domestic alternatives (e.g., who conducted the market research, when it was conducted, sources that were used, methods used to conduct the research); and description of impacts of not receiving waiver.
Program-specific fields: While many data fields are common across the four programs, Clean School Bus, DERA, Clean Ports, and Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles, there are a subset of fields which are unique to each program, reflecting differing statutory requirements or other key programmatic differences that may not apply or be relevant for participants of other programs (e.g., ‘‘Port(s) served”; “School districts the EVSE will serve").
Other Required Document uploads may include:
Signed and completed Utility Partnership Agreements;
Letter of Build America Buy America (BABA) Compliance Certification (As needed);
School district self-certification for program prioritization (As needed) ;
School board notification (school bus projects only);
Third Party agreements when a third-party conducts business on behalf of an applicant;
Completed Quality Assurance Project Plans for relevant projects;
Photographs documenting the deployment, installation, and/or scrappage of vehicles and/or equipment and/or infrastructure funded by the program.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.
TCD’s grant program participants enter data directly into their program-specific Excel- or PDF-based templates, only completing a portion of the template depending on what stage of the award process they are in (e.g., applying, selected for funding, reporting on a particular year, or closing out the project). These templates substantially reduce the burden on program participants and EPA staff by collapsing what could be extensive written narratives into concise, specific data fields. Each fillable Excel data template includes a tab with detailed user instructions, as well as a detailed data dictionary explaining all collected fields and additional terms users may encounter within the template. Additionally, the templates are formatted uniformly, to clearly indicate which fields need to be completed (shaded in blue), which fields will be automatically populated based on previous responses (shaded in yellow and locked), which fields are optional (shaded in white and labeled as optional), and which fields are inapplicable based on prior responses (hatched with bold lines using conditional formatting). Wherever possible, dropdown menus have been added to ease the burden on applicants entering information. Finally, templates have been written in such a way to clearly indicate when, where, and what kind of response is required through the implementation of field-by-field instructions and adoption of if-then and conditional formatting statements where appropriate.
Excel was chosen as the platform of choice for the supplemental application and project reporting templates, given its widespread use across the public and private sector, and ability to be exchanged via email or uploaded into portals, such as Grants.gov, as well as ingested into internal EPA data systems, such as the Database for Reporting Innovative Vehicle Emissions Reductions (DRIVER), TCD’s Oracle Apex data system for storing applicant and grant data for DERA and CSB.
Adobe PDF with fillable fields was chosen as the platform of choice for documents requiring signatures or attestations, including vehicle scrappage statements and utility partnership agreements. These forms are also widely used in the public and private sector, can be easily exchanged via email and uploaded into various platforms, and offer the ability for digital signatures, saving users time and minimizing paper required. Like Excel, select filled fields may also be extracted for ingestion into EPA data systems for further use.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.
Information requested from respondents and provided in instruments authorized under this ICR allow for efficient compilation and machine-readable formats of data that has historically only been provided in narrative formats, as previously authorized under General Administrative Requirements for Assistance Programs (Renewal), ICR No. 202103-2030-0020. General Performance Reporting forms included in the General Performance Reporting for Assistance Programs (EPA ICR Number 2802.01), ICR No. 202409-2090-001 do not capture the level of granularity required for the mobile source programs included in this ICR. The program-specific instruments included in this ICR streamline reporting for program participants, while also minimizing human error and potential bias in manual transcriptions from narrative formats into the Agency’s data storage systems.
Additionally, program participants completing these instruments are the only source of the information the Agency is requesting since program participants are the ones knowledgeable about the specific types of vehicle and equipment upgrades and/or replacements, and related activities, necessary to reduce emissions in their project area(s).
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.
The burden represented by the supplemental application templates and reporting templates cannot be further reduced for small businesses. EPA needs certain basic information to make decisions regarding grant awards, and this basic information is not dependent on the organizational size of a prospective awardee. EPA believes the reporting requirements included in this ICR do not place an unreasonable burden on small businesses or other small entities.
Additionally, EPA minimizes the burden on small entities and first-time applicants and awardees by providing program-specific instructions for the supplemental application and reporting templates within each data template and stands ready to assist with program-specific email help desks available before and during the application and project period of performance and program-specific trainings for awardees.
6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.
EPA recognizes the importance of balancing the need for data collection efforts against respondent burden and costs. The information needed for EPA to assess whether a grant applicant is eligible to receive the grant is expected to be submitted one time for each grant funding opportunity. Individual applicants may apply for multiple grants at one time (the maximum number will be announced by EPA at the start of a new grant funding opportunity).
As noted in 2 CFR Part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”, grantees are required to report updates on their respective projects no more than quarterly throughout the project’s period of performance (typically three years for the programs supported by instruments in this ICR), followed by a final report at the completion of the project. These instruments enable programs, project officers, and awardees to easily track project formal award amendments and approved workplan modifications and compare proposed activities with implemented actions and outcomes for a complete oversight of the grant’s progression throughout the project’s lifecycle.
EPA will execute a performance-based reporting cycle cadence for awardees of CSB, CHDV, DERA, and Clean Ports funding. All grant projects begin with a quarterly reporting requirement for the first year with an opportunity for reduction to semi-annual based on project milestones, demonstrated performance and Project Officer discretion. The Agency acknowledges an increased risk of a reduced reporting cycle and empowers Project Officers to maintain or reduce project reporting driven by potential risks presented present during the project cycle. This Performance-based reporting cycle enables the Agency to significantly reduce the burden on Applicant and the Agency, while minimizing associated risks.
The burden described in this ICR identifies the lowest burden that the EPA has determined as necessary. EPA has determined that the information currently required is the minimum that is necessary to adequately evaluate applicant eligibility, track awardee progress in completing the proposed activities, and to evaluate project outcomes (e.g., calculate the emissions reductions that are achieved through the grant).
7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:
requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly.
requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study; requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
TCD’s grant programs will be conducted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act [Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 1320.5(d)(2)] and will adhere to OMB’s general guidelines for information collections.
Program participants will not be required to report information to the agency more often than quarterly, and for such interannual and annual reports, participants will be provided at least 30 days to respond. Program participants will not be required to submit more than an original and two copies of any document.
In conjunction with OMB’s general guidelines, grant recipients must retain all financial records, supporting documents, accounting books and other evidence of Program activities for three years after submission of the final report. If any litigation, claim, or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year period, the recipient must maintain all appropriate records until these actions are completed and all issues resolved.
Participants will not be required to submit confidential business information. If a participant feels that any information requested would be confidential business information, the participant may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA’s Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9. Any claim of confidentiality must be asserted at the time of submission.
Sensitive questions are defined in EPA’s ICR Handbook, Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as “questions concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.” The requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.
8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.
Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.
Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years – even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (Public Law 104-13), any agency developing a non-rule-related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60-day period before submitting the ICR to OMB. These comments, which are used partly to determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must be considered when completing the Supporting Statement that is submitted to OMB. EPA published the first public notice of this ICR on October 27, 2023, via the Federal Register (88 FR 73839; 73839-73840 (2 pages)). EPA received one public comment in response to this notice, which observed the challenges of seeking school board awareness certification for the Clean School Bus program projects and the challenges of documenting utility coordination before funds are awarded. However, this comment did not quantify how these challenges translate to the burden related to this information collection. EPA has included these pre-project coordination steps for applicants, as they have been found to be critical to the timely and cost-effective implementation of award funds. In response to this comment, EPA has provided more guidance to applicants to all programs on coordinating with school boards or other authorizing entities and utility companies, where programmatically applicable.
Additionally, the application processes for the Clean School Bus, Clean Ports, and Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Programs in 2024 provided valuable insight on the actual burden for both participants and agency entities, and the instruments have been updated to enhance functionality, provide clearer direction, and improve machine readability in direct response to the use of these templates by participants.
EPA published the first public notice of a proposed revision to this ICR on January 2, 2025, via the Federal Register (90 FR 101; 101-102 (2 pages)). EPA received two public comments in response to this notice from Clean Ports program grantees. Both comments provided specific feedback to improve the project reporting forms for the Clean Ports Program; specifically, the commenters requested that the Agency amend the reporting forms to more readily accommodate the volume of anticipated data and to further enhance the usability of the project reporting forms by implementing technical changes (e.g., adding conditional formatting, updating options from drop-down menus). In response to these comments, EPA has amended the project reporting forms for the Clean Ports programs, and propagated similar changes, where applicable, to the other grant program project reporting forms. One comment also requested direction for where to capture efficiency and timeliness of the project, and in response to this comment, EPA will update supporting materials and trainings for awardees and project officers to clarify where and how this may be reported in the forms, as well as continue to provide direct technical assistance through helpdesks.
9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
Not applicable.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.
Participants will not be required to submit confidential business information. If a participant feels that any information requested would be confidential business information, the participant may request such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA’s Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Any claim of confidentiality must be asserted at the time of submission.
All data systems that store data collected via these data templates will be stored in internal EPA IT systems that meet or exceed EPA’s current policies and guidelines regarding security and privacy, including undergoing a Privacy Threshold Analysis (PTA), and where appropriate, completing a Privacy Impact Assessment Form to safeguard sensitive information, including any personally identifiable information that may be entered into these forms. The current system used to house mobile source grants data, DRIVER, has undergone a PTA, and based on those results, a privacy impact assessment was not required. Additionally, personal identifiers are not used to retrieve specific information from DRIVER.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.
No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested or required in conjunction with these information collection activities, and these information collection activities comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here.
EPA requires the information submitted through the data templates for each grant program in order to administer each grant program and ensure fiscal oversight of funds awarded. As described in Question 2, the data included in this collection spans general categories that are largely similar across programs, and a subset of program-specific fields. Categories of topics covered include: applicant and recipient organization, project costs and budget, programmatic and administrative details, project outputs, vehicles and equipment details, project location, and program-specific fields. Grantees will also be required to upload several documents, depending on the program and their specific project requirements.
Unit Reporting Burden
EPA used its best professional judgment to estimate the amount of time required for state, local and private participants to complete this ICR’s instruments and other non-form information collection required information for each grant program and provided a range of estimated burden by instrument in the following tables. Reporting time does not vary across participant type (state, local, and private). Tables 2 – 6 present the unit reporting burden for each of the five grant types by instrument. The temporal burden for each program has been calculated two ways, using the sum of the average estimate for all optional and required elements (presented as the ‘Average Estimate’ in Tables 2 – 6), and using the weighted average based on the expected participation in optional reporting elements (presented as ‘Weighted Average’ in Tables 2 – 6).
Table 2. Unit Burden for DERA Grant Program (State, National, and Tribal & Territory Programs)
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share
of participants completing
|
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Weighted
Average (hrs.) |
DERA Supplemental Application Template |
5900-681 |
100% |
5.2 |
7.6 |
6.4 |
6.4 |
DERA Eligibility Statement |
5900-687 |
100% |
1.5 |
12.0 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
DERA Scrappage Statement |
5900-688 |
100% |
1.5 |
12.0 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
DERA Project Reporting Template |
5900-691 |
100% |
12.4 |
15.7 |
14.0 |
14.0 |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
10% |
1.5 |
6.0 |
3.8 |
0.4 |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
1.5 |
3.0 |
2.3 |
0.1 |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
9% |
4.0 |
6.0 |
5.0 |
0.4 |
Total |
|
|
|
|
47.9 |
34.8 |
Table 3. Unit Burden for Clean School Bus Grant Program
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share
of participants completing
|
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Weighted
Average (hrs.) |
CSB Supplemental Application Template |
5900-680 |
100% |
7.2 |
7.6 |
7.4 |
7.4 |
CSB Eligibility and Scrap Sell Donate Statement |
5900-686 |
100% |
1.5 |
12.0 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
CSB Project Reporting Template |
5900-692 |
100% |
12.6 |
14.2 |
13.4 |
13.4 |
CSB Utility Partnership Statement |
5900-693 |
100% |
1.5 |
6.0 |
3.8 |
3.8 |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
1.5 |
3.0 |
2.3 |
0.1 |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
20% |
4.0 |
6.0 |
5.0 |
1.0 |
Total |
|
|
|
|
41.5 |
32.4 |
Table 4. Unit Burden for Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Program
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share
of participants completing
|
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Weighted
Average (hrs.) |
CHDV Supplemental Application Template |
5900-689 |
100% |
6.8 |
7.6 |
7.2 |
7.2 |
CHDV Eligibility and Scrappage Statement |
5900-682 |
100% |
1.0 |
12.0 |
6.5 |
6.5 |
CHDV Project Reporting Template |
5900-683 |
100% |
11.3 |
14.1 |
12.7 |
12.7 |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
10% |
1.5 |
6.0 |
3.8 |
0.4 |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
1.5 |
3.0 |
2.3 |
0.1 |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
57% |
4.0 |
6.0 |
5.0 |
2.9 |
Total |
|
|
|
|
39.9 |
29.7 |
Table 5. Unit Burden for Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Program
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share
of participants completing
|
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Weighted
Average (hrs.) |
Clean Ports Supplemental Application Template |
5900-679 |
100% |
2.2 |
6.1 |
4.2 |
4.2 |
Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Project Reporting Template |
TBA |
100% |
13.0 |
15.0 |
14.0 |
14.0 |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
1.5 |
3.0 |
2.3 |
0.1 |
Total |
|
|
|
|
20.5 |
18.3 |
Table 6. Unit Burden for Clean Ports Zero Emissions Technology Deployment Program
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share
of participants completing
|
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Weighted
Average (hrs.) |
Clean Ports Supplemental Application Template |
5900-679 |
100% |
2.2 |
6.1 |
4.2 |
4.2 |
Clean Ports Program Scrappage Evidence Statement |
5900-684 |
100% |
1.5 |
12.0 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
50% |
1.5 |
6.0 |
3.8 |
1.9 |
Clean Ports Zero-Emission Technology Project Reporting Template |
TBA |
100% |
22.4 |
29.6 |
26.0 |
26.0 |
Clean Ports Program Deployment Evidence Form |
TBA |
100% |
1.5 |
12.0 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
Clean Ports Program Scrappage Eligibility Statement |
TBA |
100% |
1.5 |
12.0 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
1.5 |
3.0 |
2.3 |
0.1 |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
60% |
4.0 |
6.0 |
5.0 |
3.0 |
Total |
|
|
|
|
63.0 |
55.5 |
Wage Rates
To estimate total respondent cost associated with this ICR, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data on wages and fringe benefits (total compensation) are used. Specifically, wages are estimated for labor types (management, technical, and clerical) for state and local governments and for private entities. EPA uses average wage data for state and local governments available from Table 3 of the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for state and local government workers (See BLS State and local government workers by occupational and industry group, June 2024). EPA uses average wage data for private entities available from Table 4 of the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for private industry workers (See BLS Private industry workers by occupational and industry group, June 2024).
Overhead costs are assumed to equal 20% of the sum of wages plus fringe benefits. This loading factor is described in Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and other U.S. EPA Actions.2 Table 5 presents the fully loaded wage rates used in this ICR.
Table 7. State, Local, Private Loaded Wage Rates (2024$)
Labor Category |
Wage1 |
Fringe Benefit1 |
Total Compensation |
Over-head % wage2 |
Overhead |
Hourly Loaded Wages3 |
BLS Occupational Group |
(a) |
(b) |
(c) =(a)+ (b) |
(d) |
(e)= (c) *(d) |
(f)=(c)+(e) |
||
State & local governments (including schools) |
|||||||
Managerial |
$46.48 |
$26.48 |
$72.96 |
20% |
$14.59 |
$87.55 |
State and Local Government Workers: Management, Professional, and Related |
Professional / Technical |
$34.88 |
$25.57 |
$60.45 |
20% |
$12.09 |
$72.54 |
State and Local Government Workers: Public Administration |
Clerical |
$24.98 |
$18.56 |
$43.54 |
20% |
$8.71 |
$52.25 |
State and Local Government Workers: Office and Administrative Support |
Weighted Average Wage Rates for State & local governments |
$63.55 |
|
|||||
|
|||||||
Private entities |
|||||||
Managerial |
$50.70 |
$22.91 |
$73.61 |
20% |
$14.72 |
$88.33 |
Service Providing Industries: Management, Professional, and Related Occupations |
Professional / Technical |
$24.80 |
$11.03 |
$35.83 |
20% |
$7.17 |
$43.00 |
Service Providing Industries: Transportation and Material Moving Occupations |
Clerical |
$25.32 |
$10.24 |
$35.56 |
20% |
$7.11 |
$42.67 |
Service Providing Industries: Office and Administrative Support Occupations |
Weighted Average Wage Rates for Private entities |
$50.94 |
|
|||||
Footnotes: |
|||||||
1Source: State and Local Governments - Bureau of Labor Statistics Economic News Release Table 3. State and local government, by occupational and industry group, June 2024. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t03.htm Private Fleets - Bureau of Labor Statistics Economic News Release Table 4. Private industry workers by occupational and industry group, June 2024. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t04.htm |
|||||||
2An overhead rate of 20% is used based on assumptions in Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and other U.S. EPA Actions (EPA, 2020). |
|||||||
3Values may not sum due to rounding. Wage rates are rounded to the nearest cent. |
|||||||
Respondent Universe
Tables 8a and 8b presents the total number of participants (applicants and awardees) per funding year for each of the grant programs including a count of the number of state, local, and private recipients. One key assumption to note is that the following tables and resulting calculations assume that CHDV and Clean Ports Programs are single-year funding programs, which are not anticipated to have any more applicants during the period of time covered by this revised ICR.
Table 8. Respondent Universe
Table 8a. Distribution of Grants Recipients to State, Local, and Private Entities by Program |
||||
Anticipated Recipients Per Year |
Number of State Recipients |
Number of Local Recipients |
Number of Private Recipients |
Total Recipients |
DERA Grant Program |
55 |
42 |
15 |
112 |
DERA National |
5 |
30 |
15 |
50 |
DERA Tribal & Territory |
0 |
12 |
0 |
12 |
DERA State |
50 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
Clean School Bus Grant Program |
1 |
25 |
24 |
50 |
Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Grant Program* |
13 |
54 |
3 |
70 |
Clean Ports Grant Program* |
17 |
35 |
3 |
55 |
Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Grants |
10 |
20 |
0 |
30 |
Clean Ports Zero Emission Technology Deployment Grants |
7 |
15 |
3 |
25 |
Total |
86 |
156 |
45 |
287 |
|
|
|
|
|
Table 8b. Distribution of Grant Applicants by State, Local, Private Entities by Program |
||||
Anticipated Applicants Per Year |
Number of State Applicants |
Number of Local Applicants |
Number of Private Applicants |
Total Applicants |
DERA Grant Program |
60 |
85 |
30 |
175 |
DERA National |
10 |
60 |
30 |
100 |
DERA Tribal & Territory |
0 |
25 |
0 |
25 |
DERA State |
50 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
Clean School Bus Grant Program |
4 |
100 |
96 |
200 |
Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Grant Program* |
19 |
77 |
4 |
100 |
Clean Ports Grant Program* |
34 |
70 |
6 |
110 |
Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Grants |
20 |
40 |
0 |
60 |
Clean Ports Zero Emission Technology Deployment Grants |
14 |
30 |
6 |
50 |
Total |
117 |
332 |
136 |
585 |
*Reflects tentative count of awardees as of 11/13/24 |
||||
Over the course of the ICR period, some participants will be completing applications, some will be completing interannual reports or submitting other documentation, and some will be completing final reports. Additionally, some of the funding programs are anticipated to issue funding opportunities and awards annually, while others are expected to be single-year funding opportunities, the anticipated burden and number of participants will vary by calendar year. The total number of grantees in each stage in the middle ICR year (2026) is presented in Table 9 as a ‘snapshot’ year, when grants issued in FY2024 would be completing their second reporting year (e.g., Clean School Bus, Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Clean Ports).
Table 9. Number of Participants in each Reporting Stage in the Middle ICR Year (2026)
Grant Program |
Count of Applicants (awarded in 2026) |
Count of grantees completing interannual and/or final reports |
Total Respondents by Program in ICR Year 2 |
|||
Grantees completing interannual reports in first reporting year (originally awarded in 2025) |
Grantees completing interannual reports in second reporting year (originally awarded in 2024) |
Grantees completing interannual reports in third reporting year (originally awarded in 2023) |
Grantees completing interannual reports in fourth reporting year (originally awarded in 2022) |
|||
DERA Grant Program |
|
|
|
|
|
|
DERA National |
100 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
300 |
DERA Tribal |
25 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
73 |
DERA State |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
250 |
Clean School Bus Grant Program |
200 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
N/A |
350 |
Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Program |
0 |
0 |
70 |
0 |
N/A |
70 |
Clean Ports Program |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Grants |
0 |
0 |
30 |
0 |
N/A |
30 |
Clean Ports Zero Emissions Technology Grants |
0 |
0 |
25 |
0 |
0 |
25 |
Total |
375 |
162 |
287 |
162 |
112 |
1,098 |
Cells marked ‘N/A’ reflect the 3-year project period for CSB, CHDV, and Clean Ports Planning Grants. |
||||||
Total Reporting Burden and Cost
For each grant, data on unit reporting burden, frequency of reporting per year, number of respondents per year by applicant type (state, local, and private) and wage rates are combined to estimate total reporting burden and cost. See Appendix A for a detailed derivation. Tables 10 - 14 present the annual reporting burden and cost for each grant program. It is necessary to estimate private applicant reporting burden and cost separately because, as shown in Table 5, the wage rate used for private applicants is different than the wage rate used for state and local applicants. Note in Tables 10B, 11B, 12B, 13B, and 14B that follow for each grant program, the Total Annual cost is tabulated using the respective weighted average wage rates for State and Local respondents shown in Table 6.
Table 10. Unit Burden & Cost to Participants: DERA Grant Programs
Table 10A. Unit Burden for DERA Grant Program (State, National, and Tribal & Territory Programs) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Time to Complete |
App-lication |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
|
a |
DERA Supplemental Application Template |
5900-681 |
100% |
5.2 |
7.6 |
6.4 |
5.2 - 7.6 |
6.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
b |
DERA Eligibility Statement |
5900-687 |
100% |
1.5 |
12.0 |
6.8 |
1.5 - 12 |
1.5 |
6.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
c |
DERA Scrappage Statement |
5900-688 |
100% |
1.5 |
12.0 |
6.8 |
1.5 - 12 |
0.0 |
6.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
d |
DERA Project Reporting Template |
5900-691 |
100% |
12.4 |
15.7 |
14.0 |
12.4 - 15.7 |
0.0 |
7.0 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
4.0 |
|
e |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
10% |
1.5 |
6.0 |
3.8 |
1.5 - 6 |
1.5 |
3.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
f |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
1.5 |
3.0 |
2.3 |
1.5 - 3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.3 |
|
g |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
9% |
4.0 |
6.0 |
5.0 |
4 - 6 |
0.0 |
5.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
h |
Total
Hours per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
47.9 |
23.5 - 56.2 |
9.4 |
29.3 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
6.3 |
|
i |
Total
Hours per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
33.9 |
20.5 - 47.2 |
7.9 |
20.5 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
4.0 |
|
j |
Weighted Average of Response (hrs) |
|
|
|
|
34.8 |
21.1 - 48.5 |
8.0 |
21.3 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
4.1 |
|
Table 10B. Cost to State and Local Respondents to Complete DERA Grant Program (State, National, and Tribal & Territory Programs) |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Cost to Complete |
App-lication |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
|
a |
DERA Supplemental Application Template |
5900-681 |
100% |
$327 |
$480 |
$404 |
$327 - $480 |
$404 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
b |
DERA Eligibility Statement |
5900-687 |
100% |
$95 |
$763 |
$429 |
$95 - $763 |
$95 |
$429 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
c |
DERA Scrappage Statement |
5900-688 |
100% |
$95 |
$763 |
$429 |
$95 - $763 |
$0 |
$429 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
d |
DERA Project Reporting Template |
5900-691 |
100% |
$786 |
$997 |
$891 |
$786 - $997 |
$0 |
$447 |
$95 |
$95 |
$254 |
|
e |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
10% |
$95 |
$381 |
$238 |
$95 - $381 |
$95 |
$238 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
f |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
$95 |
$191 |
$143 |
$95 - $191 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$143 |
|
g |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
9% |
$254 |
$381 |
$318 |
$254 - $381 |
$0 |
$318 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
h |
Total
Cost Per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
$3,043 |
$1,749 - $3,955 |
$594 |
$1,861 |
$95 |
$95 |
$397 |
|
i |
Total
Cost Per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
$2,153 |
$1,304 - $3,002 |
$499 |
$1,305 |
$95 |
$95 |
$254 |
|
j |
Total Cost of Response using Weighted Average of Share of Respondents Submitting Optional Forms |
|
|
|
|
$2,212 |
|
$508 |
$1,357 |
$95 |
$95 |
$261 |
|
k |
Anticipated Number of State and Local Respondents per Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
145 |
97 |
97 |
97 |
97 |
|
l |
Total
Cost for Program by Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$73,716 |
$131,604 |
$9,246 |
$9,246 |
$25,350 |
|
m |
Total
Cost for State and Local Respondents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$249,164 |
|
Table 10C. Cost to Private Respondents to Complete DERA Grant Program (State, National, and Tribal & Territory Programs) |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Cost to Complete |
App-lication |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
|
a |
DERA Supplemental Application Template |
5900-681 |
100% |
$262 |
$385 |
$323 |
$262 - $385 |
$323 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
b |
DERA Eligibility Statement |
5900-687 |
100% |
$76 |
$611 |
$344 |
$76 - $611 |
$76 |
$344 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
c |
DERA Scrappage Statement |
5900-688 |
100% |
$76 |
$611 |
$344 |
$76 - $611 |
$0 |
$344 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
d |
DERA Project Reporting Template |
5900-691 |
100% |
$630 |
$799 |
$715 |
$630 - $799 |
$0 |
$358 |
$76 |
$76 |
$204 |
|
e |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
10% |
$76 |
$306 |
$191 |
$76 - $306 |
$76 |
$191 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
f |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
$76 |
$153 |
$115 |
$76 - $153 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$115 |
|
g |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
9% |
$204 |
$306 |
$255 |
$204 - $306 |
$0 |
$255 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
h |
Total
Cost Per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
$2,184 |
$1,198 - $2,865 |
$476 |
$1,237 |
$76 |
$76 |
$318 |
|
i |
Total
Cost Per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
$1,726 |
$1,046 - $2,406 |
$400 |
$1,046 |
$76 |
$76 |
$204 |
|
j |
Total Cost of Response using Weighted Average of Share of Respondents Submitting Optional Forms |
|
|
|
|
$1,773 |
|
$408 |
$1,088 |
$76 |
$76 |
$209 |
|
k |
Anticipated Number of Private Respondents per Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
|
l |
Total
Cost for Program by Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$12,226 |
$16,314 |
$1,146 |
$1,146 |
$3,142 |
|
m |
Total
Cost for Private Respondents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$33,974 |
|
Table 11. Unit Burden & Cost to Participants: Clean School Bus Grant Program
Table 11A. Unit Burden for Clean School Bus Grant Program |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Time to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
|
a |
CSB Supplemental Application Template |
5900-680 |
100% |
7.15 |
7.55 |
7.35 |
7.2 - 7.6 |
7.35 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
b |
CSB Eligibility and Scrap Sell Donate Statement |
5900-686 |
100% |
1.5 |
12 |
6.75 |
1.5 - 12 |
1.5 |
6.75 |
0 |
0 |
|
c |
CSB Project Reporting Template |
5900-692 |
100% |
12.6 |
14.2 |
13.4 |
12.6 - 14.2 |
0 |
9.1 |
1.4 |
2.9 |
|
d |
CSB Utility Partnership Statement |
5900-693 |
100% |
1.5 |
6 |
3.75 |
1.5 - 6 |
1.5 |
3.75 |
0 |
0 |
|
e |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
1.5 |
3 |
2.25 |
1.5 - 3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2.25 |
|
f |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
20% |
4 |
6 |
5 |
4 - 6 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
|
g |
Total
Hours per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
41.5 |
28.3 - 48.8 |
10.4 |
24.6 |
1.4 |
5.2 |
|
i |
Total
Hours per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
31.3 |
22.8 - 39.8 |
10.4 |
19.6 |
1.4 |
2.9 |
|
j |
Weighted Average of Response |
|
|
|
|
32.4 |
23.6 - 41.1 |
10.4 |
20.6 |
1.4 |
3.0 |
|
Table 11B. Cost to State and Local Respondents to Complete Clean School Bus Grant Program |
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Cost to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
|
a |
CSB Supplemental Application Template |
5900-680 |
100% |
$454 |
$480 |
$467 |
$454 - $480 |
$467 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
b |
CSB Eligibility and Scrap Sell Donate Statement |
5900-686 |
100% |
$95 |
$763 |
$429 |
$95 - $763 |
$95 |
$429 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
c |
CSB Project Reporting Template |
5900-692 |
100% |
$801 |
$902 |
$852 |
$801 - $902 |
$0 |
$578 |
$89 |
$184 |
|
d |
CSB Utility Partnership Statement |
5900-693 |
100% |
$95 |
$381 |
$238 |
$95 - $381 |
$95 |
$238 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
e |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
$95 |
$191 |
$143 |
$95 - $191 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$143 |
|
f |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
20% |
$254 |
$381 |
$318 |
$254 - $381 |
$0 |
$318 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
g |
Total
Cost Per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
$2,447 |
$1,796 - $3,098 |
$658 |
$1,563 |
$89 |
$327 |
|
h |
Total
Cost Per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
$1,986 |
$1,446 - $2,526 |
$658 |
$1,246 |
$89 |
$184 |
|
i |
Total Cost of Response using Weighted Average of Share of Respondents Submitting Optional Forms |
|
|
|
|
$2,057 |
|
$658 |
$1,309 |
$89 |
$191 |
|
j |
Anticipated Number of State and Local Respondents per Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
104 |
26 |
26 |
26 |
|
k |
Total
Cost for Program by Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$68,404 |
$34,037 |
$2,313 |
$4,977 |
|
l |
Total
Cost for State and Local Respondents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$109,731 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 11C. Cost to Private Respondents to Complete Clean School Bus Grant Program |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Cost to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
|
a |
CSB Supplemental Application Template |
5900-680 |
100% |
$364 |
$385 |
$374 |
$364 - $385 |
$374 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
b |
CSB Eligibility and Scrap Sell Donate Statement |
5900-686 |
100% |
$76 |
$611 |
$344 |
$76 - $611 |
$76 |
$344 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
c |
CSB Project Reporting Template |
5900-692 |
100% |
$642 |
$723 |
$683 |
$642 - $723 |
$0 |
$464 |
$71 |
$148 |
|
d |
CSB Utility Partnership Statement |
5900-693 |
100% |
$76 |
$306 |
$191 |
$76 - $306 |
$76 |
$191 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
e |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
$76 |
$153 |
$115 |
$76 - $153 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$115 |
|
f |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
20% |
$204 |
$306 |
$255 |
$204 - $306 |
$0 |
$255 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
g |
Total
Cost Per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
$1,961 |
$1,440 - $2,483 |
$527 |
$1,253 |
$71 |
$262 |
|
h |
Total
Cost Per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
$1,592 |
$1,159 - $2,025 |
$527 |
$998 |
$71 |
$148 |
|
i |
Total Cost of Response using Weighted Average of Share of Respondents Submitting Optional Forms |
|
|
|
|
$1,649 |
|
$527 |
$1,049 |
$71 |
$153 |
|
j |
Anticipated Number of Private Respondents per Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
24 |
24 |
24 |
|
k |
Total
Cost for Program by Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$50,615 |
$25,185 |
$1,712 |
$3,683 |
|
l |
Total
Cost for Private Respondents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$81,195 |
|
Table 12. Unit Burden & Cost to Participants: Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Grant Program
Table 12A. Unit Burden for Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Grant Program |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Time to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
|
a |
CHDV Supplemental Application Template |
5900-689 |
100% |
6.8 |
7.6 |
7.2 |
6.8 - 7.6 |
7.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
b |
CHDV Eligibility and Scrappage Statement |
5900-682 |
100% |
1.0 |
12.0 |
6.5 |
1 - 12 |
1.0 |
6.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
c |
CHDV Project Reporting Template |
5900-683 |
100% |
11.3 |
14.1 |
12.7 |
11.3 - 14.1 |
0.0 |
8.4 |
1.4 |
2.9 |
|
d |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
10% |
1.5 |
6.0 |
3.8 |
1.5 - 6 |
1.5 |
3.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
e |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
1.5 |
3.0 |
2.3 |
1.5 - 3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.3 |
|
f |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
57% |
4.0 |
6.0 |
5.0 |
4 - 6 |
0.0 |
5.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
g |
Total
Hours per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
32.3 |
26.1 - 48.6 |
9.7 |
23.7 |
1.4 |
5.2 |
|
h |
Total
Hours per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
26.3 |
19.1 - 33.6 |
8.2 |
14.9 |
1.4 |
2.9 |
|
i |
Weighted Average of Response |
|
|
|
|
29.7 |
21.6 - 37.8 |
8.3 |
18.1 |
1.4 |
3.0 |
|
Table 12B. Cost to State and Local Respondents to Complete Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Grant Program |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Cost to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
|
a |
CHDV Supplemental Application Template |
5900-689 |
100% |
$429 |
$480 |
$454 |
$429 - $480 |
$454 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
b |
CHDV Eligibility and Scrappage Statement |
5900-682 |
100% |
$64 |
$763 |
$413 |
$64 - $763 |
$64 |
$413 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
c |
CHDV Project Reporting Template |
5900-683 |
100% |
$719 |
$893 |
$806 |
$719 - $893 |
$0 |
$534 |
$89 |
$184 |
|
d |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
10% |
$95 |
$381 |
$238 |
$95 - $381 |
$95 |
$238 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
e |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
$95 |
$191 |
$143 |
$95 - $191 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$143 |
|
f |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
57% |
$254 |
$381 |
$318 |
$254 - $381 |
$0 |
$318 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
g |
Total
Cost Per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
$2,372 |
$1,656 - $3,089 |
$613 |
$1,503 |
$89 |
$327 |
|
h |
Total
Cost per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
$1,673 |
$1,211 - $2,135 |
$518 |
$947 |
$89 |
$184 |
|
i |
Total Cost of Response using Weighted Average of Share of Respondents Submitting Optional Forms |
|
|
|
|
$1,886 |
|
$527 |
$1,152 |
$89 |
$191 |
|
j |
Anticipated Number of State and Local Respondents per Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
67 |
67 |
67 |
|
k |
Total
Cost for Program by Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$50,485 |
$77,202 |
$5,961 |
$12,826 |
|
l |
Total
Cost for State and Local Respondents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$146,474 |
|
Table 12C. Cost to Private Respondents to Complete Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Grant Program |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Cost to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
|
a |
CHDV Supplemental Application Template |
5900-689 |
100% |
$344 |
$385 |
$364 |
$344 - $385 |
$364 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
b |
CHDV Eligibility and Scrappage Statement |
5900-682 |
100% |
$51 |
$611 |
$331 |
$51 - $611 |
$51 |
$331 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
c |
CHDV Project Reporting Template |
5900-683 |
100% |
$576 |
$716 |
$646 |
$576 - $716 |
$0 |
$428 |
$71 |
$148 |
|
d |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
10% |
$76 |
$306 |
$191 |
$76 - $306 |
$76 |
$191 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
e |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
$76 |
$153 |
$115 |
$76 - $153 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$115 |
|
f |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
57% |
$204 |
$306 |
$255 |
$204 - $306 |
$0 |
$255 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
g |
Total
Cost Per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
$1,902 |
$1,327 - $2,476 |
$492 |
$1,205 |
$71 |
$262 |
|
h |
Total
Cost per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
$1,341 |
$971 - $1,712 |
$415 |
$759 |
$71 |
$148 |
|
i |
Total Cost of Response using Weighted Average of Share of Respondents Submitting Optional Forms |
|
|
|
|
$1,512 |
|
$423 |
$924 |
$71 |
$153 |
|
j |
Anticipated Number of Private Respondents per Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
k |
Total
Cost for Program by Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$1,812 |
$2,771 |
$214 |
$460 |
|
l |
Total
Cost for Private Respondents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$5,257 |
|
Table 13. Unit Burden & Cost to Participants: Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Program
Table 13A. Unit Burden for Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Grants |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Time to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
|
a |
Clean Ports Supplemental Application Template |
5900-679 |
100% |
2.2 |
6.1 |
4.2 |
2.2 - 6.1 |
4.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
b |
Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Project Reporting Template |
TBA |
100% |
13.0 |
15.0 |
14.0 |
13 - 15 |
0.0 |
6.2 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
|
c |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
1.5 |
3.0 |
2.3 |
1.5 - 3 |
0.0 |
2.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
d |
Total
Hours per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
20.5 |
16.7 - 24.1 |
4.2 |
8.5 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
|
e |
Total
Hours per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
18.2 |
15.2 - 21.1 |
4.2 |
6.2 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
|
f |
Weighted Average of Response |
|
|
|
|
18.3 |
15.3 - 21.2 |
4.2 |
6.3 |
2.5 |
5.0 |
|
Table 13B. Cost to State and Local Respondents to Complete Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Grants |
Estimated Cost Required Over Project Lifetime |
|
||||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Cost to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
|
a |
Clean Ports Supplemental Application Template |
5900-679 |
100% |
$137 |
$388 |
$267 |
$137 - $388 |
$267 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
b |
Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Project Reporting Template |
TBA |
100% |
$828 |
$952 |
$890 |
$828 - $952 |
$0 |
$394 |
$159 |
$318 |
|
c |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
$95 |
$191 |
$143 |
$95 - $191 |
$0 |
$143 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
d |
Total
Cost Per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
$1,300 |
$1,060 - $1,531 |
$267 |
$537 |
$159 |
$318 |
|
e |
Total
Cost per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
$1,157 |
$965 - $1,340 |
$267 |
$394 |
$159 |
$318 |
|
f |
Total Cost of Response using Weighted Average of Share of Respondents Submitting Optional Forms |
|
|
|
|
$1,164 |
|
$267 |
$401 |
$159 |
$318 |
|
g |
Anticipated Number of State and Local Respondents per Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
h |
Total
Cost for Program by Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$16,014 |
$12,035 |
$4,766 |
$9,532 |
|
i |
Total
Cost for State and Local Respondents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$42,347 |
|
Table 13C. Cost to Private Respondents to Complete Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Grants |
Estimated Cost Required Over Project Lifetime |
|
||||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Cost to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
|
a |
Clean Ports Supplemental Application Template |
5900-679 |
100% |
$110 |
$311 |
$214 |
$110 - $311 |
$214 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
b |
Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Project Reporting Template |
TBA |
100% |
$664 |
$763 |
$713 |
$664 - $764 |
$0 |
$316 |
$127 |
$255 |
|
c |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
$76 |
$153 |
$115 |
$76 - $153 |
$0 |
$115 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
d |
Total
Cost Per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
$1,042 |
$850 - $1,227 |
$214 |
$430 |
$127 |
$255 |
|
e |
Total
Cost per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
$927 |
$774 - $1,074 |
$214 |
$316 |
$127 |
$255 |
|
f |
Total Cost of Response using Weighted Average of Share of Respondents Submitting Optional Forms |
|
|
|
|
$933 |
|
$214 |
$322 |
$127 |
$255 |
|
g |
Anticipated Number of Private Respondents per Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
h |
Total
Cost for Program by Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
i |
Total
Cost for Private Respondents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$0 |
|
Table 14. Unit Burden & Cost to Participants: Clean Ports Zero Emission Technology Deployment Program
Table 14A. Unit Burden for Clean Ports Zero Emissions Technology Grants |
Estimated Time Required Over Project Lifetime |
|||||||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Time to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
|
|
a |
Clean Ports Supplemental Application Template |
5900-679 |
100% |
2.2 |
6.1 |
4.2 |
2.2 - 6.1 |
4.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
b |
Clean Ports Program Scrappage Evidence Statement |
5900-684 |
100% |
1.5 |
12.0 |
6.8 |
1.5 - 12 |
0.0 |
6.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
c |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
50% |
1.5 |
6.0 |
3.8 |
1.5 - 6 |
1.5 |
3.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
d |
Clean Ports Zero-Emission Technology Project Reporting Template |
TBA |
100% |
22.4 |
29.6 |
26.0 |
22.4 - 29.6 |
0.0 |
15.9 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
4.7 |
|
|
e |
Clean Ports Program Deployment Evidence Form |
TBA |
100% |
1.5 |
12.0 |
6.8 |
1.5 - 12 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
6.8 |
|
|
f |
Clean Ports Program Scrappage Eligibility Statement |
TBA |
100% |
1.5 |
12.0 |
6.8 |
1.5 - 12 |
0.0 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
1.7 |
|
|
g |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
1.5 |
3.0 |
2.3 |
1.5 - 3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.3 |
|
|
h |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
60% |
4.0 |
6.0 |
5.0 |
4 - 6 |
0.0 |
5.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
i |
Total
Hours per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
61.5 |
36.1 - 86.7 |
5.7 |
33.1 |
4.4 |
4.4 |
15.4 |
|
|
h |
Total
Hours per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
50.5 |
29.1 - 71.7 |
4.2 |
24.4 |
4.4 |
4.4 |
13.1 |
|
|
i |
Weighted Average of Response |
|
|
|
|
55.5 |
32.3 - 78.5 |
5.0 |
29.2 |
4.4 |
4.4 |
13.3 |
|
|
Table 14B. Cost to State and Local Respondents to Complete Clean Ports Zero Emissions Technology Grants |
Estimated Cost Required Over Project Lifetime |
|||||||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Cost to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
|
|
a |
Clean Ports Supplemental Application Template |
5900-679 |
100% |
$137 |
$388 |
$267 |
$137 - $388 |
$267 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
b |
Clean Ports Program Scrappage Evidence Statement |
5900-684 |
100% |
$95 |
$763 |
$429 |
$95 - $763 |
$0 |
$429 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
c |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
50% |
$95 |
$381 |
$238 |
$95 - $381 |
$95 |
$238 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
d |
Clean Ports Zero-Emission Technology Project Reporting Template |
TBA |
100% |
$1,426 |
$1,882 |
$1,654 |
$1,426 - $1,882 |
$0 |
$1,012 |
$172 |
$172 |
$299 |
|
|
e |
Clean Ports Program Deployment Evidence Form |
TBA |
100% |
$95 |
$763 |
$429 |
$95 - $763 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$429 |
|
|
f |
Clean Ports Program Scrappage Eligibility Statement |
TBA |
100% |
$95 |
$763 |
$429 |
$95 - $763 |
$0 |
$107 |
$107 |
$107 |
$107 |
|
|
g |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
$95 |
$191 |
$143 |
$95 - $191 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$143 |
|
|
h |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
60% |
$254 |
$381 |
$318 |
$254 - $381 |
$0 |
$318 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
i |
Total
Cost Per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
$3,907 |
$2,294 - $5,511 |
$362 |
$2,105 |
$279 |
$279 |
$978 |
|
|
j |
Total
Cost per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
$3,208 |
$1,849 - $4,558 |
$267 |
$1,548 |
$279 |
$279 |
$835 |
|
|
k |
Total Cost of Response using Weighted Average of Share of Respondents Submitting Optional Forms |
|
|
|
|
$3,525 |
|
$315 |
$1,858 |
$279 |
$279 |
$842 |
|
|
l |
Anticipated Number of State and Local Respondents per Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
22 |
22 |
22 |
22 |
|
|
m |
Total
Cost for Program by Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$13,841 |
$40,882 |
$6,134 |
$6,134 |
$18,524 |
|
|
n |
Total
Cost for State and Local Respondents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$85,515 |
|
|
Table 14C. Cost to Private Respondents to Complete Clean Ports Zero Emissions Technology Grants |
Estimated Cost Required Over Project Lifetime |
|||||||||||||
|
EPA Form Name |
EPA Form Number |
Share of Responses |
Low
End Estimate |
High
End Estimate |
Average
Estimate |
Range
of Cost to Complete |
Application |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 3 |
Year 4 |
|
|
a |
Clean Ports Supplemental Application Template |
5900-679 |
100% |
$110 |
$311 |
$214 |
$110 - $311 |
$214 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
b |
Clean Ports Program Scrappage Evidence Statement |
5900-684 |
100% |
$76 |
$611 |
$344 |
$76 - $611 |
$0 |
$344 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
c |
Utility Partnership Agreement |
5900-685 |
50% |
$76 |
$306 |
$191 |
$76 - $306 |
$76 |
$191 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
d |
Clean Ports Zero-Emission Technology Project Reporting Template |
TBA |
100% |
$1,143 |
$1,509 |
$1,326 |
$1,143 - $1,509 |
$0 |
$811 |
$138 |
$138 |
$239 |
|
|
e |
Clean Ports Program Deployment Evidence Form |
TBA |
100% |
$76 |
$611 |
$344 |
$76 - $611 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$344 |
|
|
f |
Clean Ports Program Scrappage Eligibility Statement |
TBA |
100% |
$76 |
$611 |
$344 |
$76 - $611 |
$0 |
$86 |
$86 |
$86 |
$86 |
|
|
g |
OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form |
TBA |
5% |
$76 |
$153 |
$115 |
$76 - $153 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$115 |
|
|
h |
BABA Waiver Request (non-form information collection) |
N/A |
60% |
$204 |
$306 |
$255 |
$204 - $306 |
$0 |
$255 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
i |
Total
Cost Per Complete Response |
|
|
|
|
$3,132 |
$1,839 - $4,417 |
$290 |
$1,687 |
$224 |
$224 |
$784 |
|
|
j |
Total
Cost per Required Response |
|
|
|
|
$2,571 |
$1,482 - $3,653 |
$214 |
$1,241 |
$224 |
$224 |
$669 |
|
|
k |
Total Cost of Response using Weighted Average of Share of Respondents Submitting Optional Forms |
|
|
|
|
$2,826 |
|
$252 |
$1,490 |
$224 |
$224 |
$675 |
|
|
l |
Anticipated Number of Private Respondents per Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
m |
Total
Cost for Program by Stage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$1,513 |
$4,469 |
$671 |
$671 |
$2,025 |
|
|
n |
Total
Cost for Private Respondents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$9,348 |
|
|
The average annual reporting burden and cost as well as burden and cost for the total ICR period for each grant program are presented in Table 15.
Table 15. Total Reporting Burden and Cost by Grant Program
Grant Program |
Average Annual Temporal Cost for Participants over ICR Period (2025-2027) (hrs.) |
Average Annual Cost for Participants over ICR Period (2025-2027; $) |
Total Temporal Cost Over ICR (2025-2027) (hrs.) |
Total Cost Over ICR (2025-2027) ($) |
DERA Grant Program |
4,588 |
$283,138 |
13,763 |
$849,413 |
DERA National |
2,223 |
$132,867 |
6,669 |
$398,601 |
DERA Tribal |
542 |
$34,415 |
1,625 |
$103,244 |
DERA State |
1,823 |
$115,856 |
5,469 |
$347,568 |
Clean School Bus Grant Program |
2,580 |
$148,366 |
7,741 |
$445,097 |
Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Program |
526 |
$33,145 |
1,578 |
$99,435 |
Clean Ports Program |
455 |
$28,431 |
1,365 |
$85,293 |
Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Grant Program |
138 |
$8,778 |
414 |
$26,333 |
Clean Ports Deployment of Zero Emissions Technology Grant Program |
317 |
$19,653 |
950 |
$58,960 |
Total |
8,149 |
$493,079 |
24,447 |
$1,479,238 |
13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden
already reflected on the burden worksheet).
The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and Maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should consider Costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors
including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the period over which costs will be incurred.
Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost
burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting
out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In
developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking
containing the information collection, as appropriate.
Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions
thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with
requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
This ICR accounts for labor costs only. There are no capital or operation and maintenance costs associated with this action.
14. Provide estimates of annualized costs to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours,
operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any
other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.
EPA staff will review the applications, interannual project reports, and final reports submitted by participants. Table 16 presents the estimated Agency burden hours and costs associated with the information collection activities under this ICR, estimated to be approximately 7300 agency hours, totaling $1.06M. EPA based its burden estimates on the professional judgement of CSB, DERA, Clean Ports, and Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Program staff. These estimates are considered conservative.
Table 16. Estimated Burden and Cost to the Agency
Grant Program |
Reporting
Burden1
per
Response Received |
Number of Applications |
Number of Responses per Interannual Reporting Period |
Number of Interannual Reports Required (e.g., Quarterly = 4; Biannual= 2) |
Total
Agency Burden Annually |
Total Agency Cost Annually ($2024) |
Total Agency Burden Over the ICR Period |
Total Agency Cost Over the ICR Period (2024$) |
DERA (National, Tribal, and State) Program |
2 |
175 |
112 |
4 |
1,246 |
$180,680 |
3,738 |
$542,040 |
Clean School Bus Program |
2 |
200 |
50 |
4 |
800 |
$116,006 |
2,400 |
$348,019 |
Clean Heavy- Duty Vehicle Program* |
2 |
0 |
70 |
4 |
560 |
$81,204 |
840 |
$121,807 |
Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Program* |
2 |
0 |
30 |
2 |
120 |
$17,401 |
180 |
$26,101 |
Clean Ports Deployment of Zero Emissions Technology Program* |
2 |
0 |
25 |
2 |
100 |
$14,501 |
150 |
$21,751 |
TOTAL |
|
375 |
287 |
|
2,826 |
$409,793 |
7,308 |
$1,059,718 |
1
Time
estimate provided by EPA/OTAQ (Tim Thomas) via email on 9/06/2023:
We expect that the agency burden will be 2 hours per
submission. |
||||||||
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported on the burden worksheet.
The revised instruments and calculated burden presented here reflects four fundamental changes from the initial burden estimation:
Finalization of Program Design: The Clean Ports Program design was finalized in early 2024 and consists of two discrete funding opportunities, the Climate and Air Quality Planning Program and the Zero-Emissions Technology Deployment Program. These two funding programs had separate notices of funding opportunities, distinct eligible activities, and project periods, thereby requiring two separate reporting templates, ‘Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Project Reporting Template’ and ‘Clean Ports Zero-Emission Technology Project Reporting Template’ to replace the instrument ‘Clean Ports Project Reporting Template’ (EPA Form 5900-690). Additionally, the program’s final design required the development of two new instruments for participants in the Zero-Emissions Technology Deployment Program:
‘Clean Ports Program Scrappage Eligibility Statement’ to attest and certify vehicles meet the requirements for scrappage as part of the program, and
‘Clean Ports Program Technology Deployment Evidence Statement’ to capture data and photographic evidence of deployed vehicles and equipment funded by the program.
Advancement of Funding Programs: The Clean Ports Program and Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Program are presumed to be one-time funding opportunities, and as such, the burden attributed to the application period for these programs is complete and not accounted for in the total burden estimates for the period of this proposed ICR revision (2025-2027). Additionally, the burdens shown for these programs are reflective of the actual number of recipients for these programs, which were considerably fewer than what was previously estimated and included in the initial burden estimation (which was completed before the program designs were finalized).
New and Revised Instruments: The revised burden includes the addition of a new, optional instrument to capture best practices and success stories from awardees across programs. The revised burden also incorporates technical edits and updates to six instruments (DERA, CSB, and CHDV Reporting Templates, DERA Eligibility Statement, CHDV Eligibility and Scrappage Statement, and CSB Utility Partnership Statement) which enhance user experience, expedite agency review, and align technical language with respective program guidance.
Revised Burden Calculations: The revised burden estimates include a correction to address the anticipated number of applicants and awardees responding for the DERA and CSB programs. The previous estimate undercounted the anticipated number of respondents anticipated annually for these multi-year programs, and the estimate below includes the corrected value. These programs anticipate receiving responses from about 1,000 respondents annually across all programs and project lifecycles. Despite the increase in number of respondents anticipated, this revised estimate still projects an overall decrease in both the temporal and cost of labor burden for this collection. Additionally, to lend more transparency and to account for the burden of optional forms, this revision includes a weighted average that factors in the anticipated share of participants submitting each optional collection.
Additionally, the tables above and attached burden worksheet more clearly describe the burden attributed to each instrument covered in this ICR and how the burden is spread across the ICR period and project period of performance. Altogether, the difference in estimated burden from the initial submission is shown below in Table 17.
Table 17. Difference in Burden from Original Estimation to Revision
Grant Program |
Difference in Average Number of Respondents per Year over ICR Period |
Difference in Average Annual Temporal Cost for Participants over ICR Period (hrs.) |
Difference in Average Annual Cost for Participants over ICR Period (hrs.) |
Difference in Total Hours Over ICR Period |
Difference in Total Cost Over ICR Period |
DERA Grant Program (National, Tribal, and State) |
511 |
-6,632 |
-$358,510 |
-19,897 |
-$1,075,531 |
Clean School Bus Grant Program |
217 |
796 |
$54,571 |
2,388 |
$163,711 |
Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Grant Program |
20 |
-50 |
$2,864 |
-150 |
$8,593 |
Clean Ports Program |
-45 |
-553 |
-$28,353 |
-1,660 |
-$85,060 |
Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Grant Program |
10 |
25 |
$2,432 |
76 |
$7,296 |
Clean Ports Zero Emission Technology Deployment Grant Program |
-55 |
-578 |
-$30,785 |
-1,737 |
-$92,356 |
Total Difference |
703 |
-6,440 |
-$329,429 |
-19,319 |
-$988,287 |
Relative Difference from Initial Estimation (December 2023) |
225%▲ |
-44%▼ |
-40%▼ |
-44%▼ |
-40%▼ |
16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
The Agency does not plan to directly publish the information received from this information collection.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
The Agency plans to display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection on all instruments.
18. Explain each exception to the topics of the certification statement identified in “Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions.”
EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.
Appendices:
Appendix A: Grants ICR Calculations (updated March 2025)
Appendix B: Extract of Title VII, Subtitle G (§791 to 797) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58), as amended by the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-364) and Division S (§101) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260), codified at 42 U.S.C. 16131 et seq.
Appendix C: Excerpt of Title XI, §71101 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58)
Appendix D: Excerpt of Title VI, §60101 and §60102 of the Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law-117-169)
Appendix E: Excerpt of Title IX, Subtitle A, §70911 et seq. Buy America Build America Act of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58)
Appendix F: Copy of Paperwork Reduction Act (Public Law 104-13)
Appendix G: Clean Ports Supplemental Application Template (EPA Form: 5900-679)
Appendix H: CSB Supplemental Application Template (EPA Form: 5900-680)
Appendix I: DERA Supplemental Application Template (EPA Form: 5900-681)
Appendix J: CHDV Eligibility and Scrappage Statement (EPA Form: 5900-682)
Appendix K: CHDV Project Reporting Template (EPA Form: 5900-683)
Appendix L: Clean Ports Program Scrappage Evidence Statement (EPA Form: 5900-684)
Appendix M: Utility Partnership Agreement (EPA Form: 5900-685)
Appendix N: CSB Eligibility and Scrap Sell Donate Statement (EPA Form: 5900-686)
Appendix O: DERA Eligibility Statement (EPA Form: 5900-687)
Appendix P: DERA Scrappage Statement (EPA Form: 5900-688)
Appendix Q: CHDV Supplemental Application Template (EPA Form: 5900-689)
Appendix R: DERA Project Reporting Template (EPA Form: 5900-691)
Appendix S: CSB Project Reporting Template (EPA Form: 5900-692)
Appendix T: CSB Utility Partnership Statement (EPA Form: 5900-693)
Appendix U: Clean Ports Climate and Air Quality Planning Project Reporting Template (EPA Form: TBA)
Appendix V: Clean Ports Zero-Emission Technology Project Reporting Template (EPA Form: TBA)
Appendix W: OTAQ Funding Program Recipient Story Collection Form (EPA Form: TBA)
Appendix X: Clean Ports Program Scrappage Eligibility Statement (EPA Form: TBA)
Appendix Y: Clean Ports Program Deployment Evidence Form (EPA Form: TBA)
1 Note that data in each of the seven categories are all collected across the three phases of the grant lifecycle (application, interannual reporting, final reporting), but with different degrees of specificity required depending on where in the project life the reporting is happening, with more, specific fields required as the project materializes from a proposal to a completed project.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2020). Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and Other EPA Actions. EPA-236-B-15-001. National Center for Environmental Economics.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| Author | McGrath, Daniel |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2025-08-03 |