Proposed Collection for Data Validation Requirement for Employment and Training Programs; Comment Request, 30639-30641 [E7-10558]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices
of the Act, which, among other things,
require a fiduciary to discharge his
duties respecting the plan solely in the
interest of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plan and in a
prudent fashion in accordance with
section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does
it affect the requirement of section
401(a) of the Code that the plan must
operate for the exclusive benefit of the
employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) Before an exemption may be
granted under section 408(a) of the Act
and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code,
the Department must find that the
exemption is administratively feasible,
in the interests of the plan and of its
participants and beneficiaries, and
protective of the rights of participants
and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The proposed exemptions, if
granted, will be supplemental to, and
not in derogation of, any other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including statutory or administrative
exemptions and transitional rules.
Furthermore, the fact that a transaction
is subject to an administrative or
statutory exemption is not dispositive of
whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction; and
(4) The proposed exemptions, if
granted, will be subject to the express
condition that the material facts and
representations contained in each
application are true and complete, and
that each application accurately
describes all material terms of the
transaction which is the subject of the
exemption.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of
May, 2007.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department Of Labor.
[FR Doc. E7–10488 Filed 5–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Proposed Collection for Data
Validation Requirement for
Employment and Training Programs;
Comment Request
Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as
part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden
conducts a preclearance consultation
program to provide the general public
and Federal agencies with an
opportunity to comment on proposed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:10 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
and/or continuing collections of
information in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This
program helps to ensure that requested
data can be provided in the desired
format, reporting burden (time and
financial resources) is minimized,
collection instruments are clearly
understood, and the impact of collection
requirements on respondents can be
properly assessed. Currently, the
Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) is soliciting
comments concerning a revision of a
data validation requirement for the
following employment and training
programs: Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), National
Farmworker Jobs (NFJP), Indian and
Native American Employment and
Training, and Senior Community
Service Employment (SCSEP).
A copy of the proposed information
collection request (ICR) can be obtained
by contacting the office listed below in
the addresses section of this notice or by
accessing: https://www.doleta.gov/
OMBCN/OMBControlNumber.cfm.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted to the office listed in the
addressee’s section below on or before
July 31, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
to the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training
Administration, Office of Performance
and Technology, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room S–5206,
Washington, DC 20210, Attention:
Karen A. Staha, Director, Division of
System Accomplishments. Telephone
number: (202) 693–3031 (this is not a
toll-free number). Fax: (202) 693–3490.
E-mail: Staha.Karen@dol.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Traci DiMartini, Office of Performance
and Technology, Employment and
Training Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room S–5206,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202)
693–3698 (this is not a toll-free
number); fax: (202) 693–3490; e-mail:
Dimartini.Traci@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The accuracy and reliability of
program reports submitted by states and
grantees using Federal funds are
fundamental elements of good public
administration, and are necessary tools
for maintaining and demonstrating
system integrity. The President’s
Management Agenda to improve the
management and performance of the
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30639
Federal government has emphasized the
importance of complete information for
program monitoring and improving
program results. States and grantees
receiving funding under WIA Title IB,
Wagner-Peyser Act, TAA, and the Older
Americans Act (i.e., SCSEP) are required
to maintain and report accurate program
and financial information (WIA section
185 (29 U.S.C. 2935) and WIA
Regulations 20 CFR 667.300(e)(2),
Wagner-Peyser Act section 10 (29 U.S.C.
49i), Older Americans Act section
503(f)(3) and (4) (42 U.S.C. 3056a(f)(3)
and (4)), and TAA regulations 20 CFR
617.57). Further, all states and grantees
receiving funding from ETA and the
Veterans’ Employment and Training
Service are required to submit reports or
participant records and attest to the
accuracy of these reports and records.
Performance audits conducted by the
Department of Labor’s Office of
Inspector General, however, found that
the accuracy of reported performance
outcomes could not be assured due to
insufficient local, state, and Federal
oversight. To address this concern and
meet the Agency’s goal for accurate and
reliable data, ETA implemented a data
validation process in order to ensure the
accuracy of data collected and reported
on program activities and outcomes.
Data Validation. The data validation
requirement for employment and
training programs strengthens the
workforce system by ensuring that
accurate and reliable information on
program activities and outcomes is
available. Data validation is intended to
accomplish the following goals:
• Ensure that critical performance
data are accurate.
• Detect and identify specific
problems with a state’s or grantee’s
reporting process, including software
and data issues, to enable the state or
grantee to correct the problems.
• Help states and grantees analyze the
causes of performance successes and
failures by displaying participant data
organized by performance outcomes. In
addition, the process allows states and
grantees to select appropriate validation
samples necessary to compute
statistically significant error rates.
Data validation consists of two parts:
1. Report validation evaluates the
validity of aggregate reports submitted
to ETA by checking the accuracy of the
reporting software used to calculate the
reports. Report validation is conducted
by processing a complete file of
participant records into validation
counts and comparing the validation
counts to those reported by the state or
grantee.
2. Data element validation assesses
the accuracy of participant data records.
E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM
01JNN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
30640
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices
Data element validation is conducted by
reviewing samples of participant
records against source documentation to
ensure compliance with Federal
definitions.
Data Validation Background. WIA
Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA
program staff have been conducting data
validation for three years. The states
received training prior to beginning
validation and receive ongoing training
and technical assistance from ETA
throughout the validation process. NFJP
grantees have been conducting data
validation for two years, and have
received ongoing training and technical
assistance during this period. SCSEP
grantees will begin data validation by
the end of Calendar Year (CY) 2007.
Indian and Native American program
grantees will pilot validation by 2008.
Resources. The requirement to
perform validation derives from states’
and grantees’ responsibility to provide
accurate information on program
activities and outcomes to ETA. States
and grantees are expected to provide
resources for conducting validation
from their administrative funds.
Validation of program performance is a
basic responsibility of grantees, who are
required to report on program
performance, in accordance with
statutory provisions and Department of
Labor regulations (29 CFR 95.51 and
97.40). ETA has taken a number of steps
to minimize the resources needed for
data validation, including developing
tools that states and grantees can use to
conduct validation. The estimates
provided below indicate that annual
staff requirements for a state to continue
data validation operations for WIA Title
IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA programs
will be on average 792 hours each year
(or less than 1⁄2 of a staff year) for all
three programs combined. For the NFJP,
Indian and Native American program,
and SCSEP grantees, the annual staff
requirements will be on average 103
hours (or about 1⁄20 of a staff year) for
each grant.
Data Validation Tools. To reduce the
startup costs of implementing data
validation, there are standardized
software and user handbooks that states
and grantees can use to conduct data
validation. Software and handbooks
have already been developed for the
state programs and the NFJP, and will
be developed for the Indian and Native
American program and the SCSEP.
• Software generates samples,
worksheets, and reports on data
accuracy. For report validation, the
software validates the accuracy of
aggregate reports that are generated by
the state’s or grantee’s reporting
software and produces an error rate for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:10 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
each reported count. For data element
validation, the software generates a
sample of the participant records and
data elements for the state or grantee to
validate. The software produces
worksheets on which the validator
records information after checking the
source documentation in the sampled
case files. The software calculates error
rates for each data element, with
confidence intervals of 3.5 percent for
large states/grantees and 4 percent for
small states/grantees.
• User handbooks provide detailed
information on software installation,
building and importing a validation file,
and completing report and data element
validation. The handbooks also explain
the validation methodology, including
sampling specifications and data
element validation instructions for each
data element to be validated.
Data Recording and Reports. States
and grantees submit their validation
results electronically to ETA in the same
manner as other reports. The results are
stored in a data base in ETA’s
headquarters in Washington, DC, and
compiled in an annual validation
accuracy report.
Training and Technical Assistance.
ETA has provided validation training
and technical assistance to states in
regional sessions on an ongoing basis
since the summer of 2003. Technical
assistance has also been provided on an
ongoing basis to the NFJP grantees.
Training for the SCSEP will take place
in CY 2007. Indian and Native
American program grantees will receive
training prior to implementation. States
and grantees may obtain technical
assistance on validation procedures and
the use of the validation tools by
contacting ETA’s Office of Performance
and Technology.
Revisions have been made for two
reasons. First, for the initial information
collection request, ETA combined the
burden estimates for all the programs
since all would be incurring start-up
burden. This time, ETA has
disaggregated the estimates for each
program to distinguish those that are
just beginning to implement data
validation and have yet to incur a
startup burden, from those that have
already implemented data validation
and will incur no new start-up burden
when the information collection is
extended.
Second, some of the data elements to
be validated have been revised to reflect
the changes made to specific program
reporting requirements and the
definitions of the performance
measures. These changes include: The
addition of WIA Title IB validation
requirements for the National
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Emergency Grants (NEG) and older
youth funding streams; the deletion of
data elements from the WIA Title IB
adult, dislocated worker, and younger
youth program validation requirements;
and the deletion of data elements from
the TAA validation requirements. The
new data element requirements are
documented in the programs’ data
validation user handbooks.
II. Review Focus
The Department of Labor is
particularly interested in comments
which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses.
III. Current Actions
Type of Review: Revision of Approved
Collection.
Agency: Employment and Training
Administration.
Title: Data Validation Requirement for
Employment and Training Programs
OMB Number: 1205–0448.
Recordkeeping: States and grantees
must maintain complete records of all
validation activities for three years. The
retention requirement will apply to
records of all validation activities,
including files, worksheets, reports, and
source documentation.
Affected Public: State, local and tribal
government entities and private nonprofit organizations.
Total Respondents: 318 (53 states and
265 grantees).
Frequency: Complete data validation
annually.
Total Responses: 424 (3 responses
each for the 53 states and 1 response for
each of the 265 grantees).
Average Annual Time per
Respondent: 792 hours for states’
validations for WIA Title IB, WagnerPeyser, and TAA combined, and 103
hours per grantee for the NFJP, Indian
E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM
01JNN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices
and Native American program, and the
SCSEP.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 41,970
for all 53 states plus 27,361 for all 265
grantees when fully implemented.
Average Annual Cost per Respondent/
Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintaining): $25,736 on average per
state and $1,364,025 per year for all
states to complete validation for the
WIA Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA
programs. The estimated annual cost of
conducting validation for the NFJP,
Indian and Native American program,
and the SCSEP grantees is $1,960 on
average per grantee and $519,301 total.
Total Burden Hours (start-up): There
is no startup burden for WIA Title IB,
Wagner-Peyser, and TAA programs
because this was incurred when data
validation was first implemented three
years ago. NFJP grantees have been
conducting data validation for two years
and have received ongoing training and
technical assistance during this period
SCSEP grantees will begin data
validation by the end of CY 2007. Indian
and Native American program grantees
will pilot validation by 2008. Startup
activities for the Indian and Native
American program and SCSEP will
require an additional 75 hours on
average per grantee in the initial year of
validation for a total of 16,072 start-up
burden hours.
Total Burden Cost (start-up): $1,311
for each of the 74 SCSEP grants and
$847 for each of the 141 Indian and
Native American program grantee for
281,931 combined for the 215 grantees
in the initial year of validation for both
the Indian and Native American
program and the SCSEP, and $0 for
NFJP and the WIA Title IB, WagnerPeyser, and TAA programs.
Data validation, when fully
implemented, is estimated to require an
annual burden of 69,331 hours and
$1,883,326 for operating all six
programs subject to the validation
requirement. And as stated earlier, an
additional 16,072 hours and $281,931 in
start-up burden in the initial year of
validation is estimated for the Indian
and Native American and SCSEP
grantees. These estimates represent a
significant decrease in costs and a slight
increase in hours from the current OMB
inventory for ETA data validation. The
change is attributable to three factors:
• The elimination of start-up costs for
WIA, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA
programs, and the NFJP validation;
• Updates in the number of grantees
required to conduct data validation; and
• Updates to the hourly cost of
conducting data validation for grantee
staff.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:10 May 31, 2007
Jkt 211001
Comments submitted in response to
this comment request will be
summarized and/or included in the
request for Office of Management and
Budget approval of the information
collection request; they will also
become a matter of public record.
Dated: May 21, 2007.
John R. Beverly, III,
Administrator, Office of Performance and
Technology.
[FR Doc. E7–10558 Filed 5–31–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
Soliciting Participation in Electronic
Copyright Office (eCO) Beta Test
Copyright Office, Library of
Congress.
ACTION: Public notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In July 2007, the Copyright
Office will initiate a beta testing phase
in the development of its automated
registration system, electronic Copyright
Office (eCO). Requests to participate in
eCO beta testing are being accepted from
the public at this time. Participants will
be selected in the order that requests are
received and based on an array of
submission criteria, and basic
registration claims will be accepted at a
reduced rate established for electronic
filings.
DATES: Requests for participation in the
beta test of the Copyright Office‘s online
registration system are being accepted
through the Office’s Web site beginning
June 1, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Requests to participate in
the beta test of the Copyright Office‘s
electronic online registration system
may be filed through the Office’s Web
site at: https://www.copyright.gov/eco/
beta–request.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Christopher, Special Assistant to
the Register of Copyrights, Office of the
Register, P.O. Box 70977, Southwest
Station, Washington, DC 20024–0977.
Telephone: (202) 707–8825. Telefax:
(202) 707–8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Copyright Office is a service unit
within the Library of Congress. The
mission of the Copyright Office is to
promote creativity by administering and
sustaining an effective national
copyright system that relies on the
collection, processing, storage and
dissemination of information to fulfill
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30641
its duties under title 17 of the United
States Code and title 37 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. Congress enacted
the first federal copyright law in 1790
and it has been revised periodically over
the years.
In 1870 Congress established a
national copyright function in the
Library of Congress and required that all
works be deposited and registered in
this single location. The registration and
deposit of works under copyright
protection serves two important
purposes: to create a public record of
copyright registration and to enrich the
collections of the Library of Congress for
the benefit of the American people. The
Copyright Office administers the
copyright law by registering claims to
copyright, recording legal documents
relating to copyright ownership (i.e.,
recordation), acquiring copyrighted
works for deposit in the collections of
the Library of Congress, and handling
administrative provisions of statutory
licenses and obligations. The Copyright
Office provides authoritative advice on
copyright to the Congress and the
Executive Branch, and the judiciary,
and serves as a resource to the domestic
and international communities. The
Office responds to public requests for
information and engages in outreach
programs to contribute to the public
discussion of copyright issues.
Processing systems
The Copyright Office has operated in
essentially the same manner for many
years and is primarily a paper–based
operation. Most remitters submit paper
applications for copyright registration
and paper documents for recordation.
Correspondence is also produced
primarily on paper and stored in paper
files. Works submitted for registration
are often bulky and contain multiple
items. Currently, materials submitted for
registration move through several
different divisions without the benefit of
tracking systems to identify the location
of each individual work during its
processing.
The Copyright Office has six principal
office–wide systems that are used for
workflow management: fee processing,
correspondence tracking, imaging,
statutory license information, historical
copyright information, and electronic
receipts. There are some automated
interfaces between the systems, but the
systems are not integrated with each
other or with other related Library of
Congress processes. Numerous small
PC–based systems have also been
developed to track many transactions
that the larger systems were not
designed to support. Some systems rely
E:\FR\FM\01JNN1.SGM
01JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 105 (Friday, June 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30639-30641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10558]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Proposed Collection for Data Validation Requirement for
Employment and Training Programs; Comment Request
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance
consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing
collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to
ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of
collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is
soliciting comments concerning a revision of a data validation
requirement for the following employment and training programs:
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), National Farmworker Jobs (NFJP), Indian
and Native American Employment and Training, and Senior Community
Service Employment (SCSEP).
A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be
obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section
of this notice or by accessing: https://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/
OMBControlNumber.cfm.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
addressee's section below on or before July 31, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, Office of Performance and
Technology, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-5206, Washington, DC
20210, Attention: Karen A. Staha, Director, Division of System
Accomplishments. Telephone number: (202) 693-3031 (this is not a toll-
free number). Fax: (202) 693-3490. E-mail: Staha.Karen@dol.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Traci DiMartini, Office of Performance
and Technology, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-5206, Washington, DC
20210; telephone: (202) 693-3698 (this is not a toll-free number); fax:
(202) 693-3490; e-mail: Dimartini.Traci@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The accuracy and reliability of program reports submitted by states
and grantees using Federal funds are fundamental elements of good
public administration, and are necessary tools for maintaining and
demonstrating system integrity. The President's Management Agenda to
improve the management and performance of the Federal government has
emphasized the importance of complete information for program
monitoring and improving program results. States and grantees receiving
funding under WIA Title IB, Wagner-Peyser Act, TAA, and the Older
Americans Act (i.e., SCSEP) are required to maintain and report
accurate program and financial information (WIA section 185 (29 U.S.C.
2935) and WIA Regulations 20 CFR 667.300(e)(2), Wagner-Peyser Act
section 10 (29 U.S.C. 49i), Older Americans Act section 503(f)(3) and
(4) (42 U.S.C. 3056a(f)(3) and (4)), and TAA regulations 20 CFR
617.57). Further, all states and grantees receiving funding from ETA
and the Veterans' Employment and Training Service are required to
submit reports or participant records and attest to the accuracy of
these reports and records.
Performance audits conducted by the Department of Labor's Office of
Inspector General, however, found that the accuracy of reported
performance outcomes could not be assured due to insufficient local,
state, and Federal oversight. To address this concern and meet the
Agency's goal for accurate and reliable data, ETA implemented a data
validation process in order to ensure the accuracy of data collected
and reported on program activities and outcomes.
Data Validation. The data validation requirement for employment and
training programs strengthens the workforce system by ensuring that
accurate and reliable information on program activities and outcomes is
available. Data validation is intended to accomplish the following
goals:
Ensure that critical performance data are accurate.
Detect and identify specific problems with a state's or
grantee's reporting process, including software and data issues, to
enable the state or grantee to correct the problems.
Help states and grantees analyze the causes of performance
successes and failures by displaying participant data organized by
performance outcomes. In addition, the process allows states and
grantees to select appropriate validation samples necessary to compute
statistically significant error rates.
Data validation consists of two parts:
1. Report validation evaluates the validity of aggregate reports
submitted to ETA by checking the accuracy of the reporting software
used to calculate the reports. Report validation is conducted by
processing a complete file of participant records into validation
counts and comparing the validation counts to those reported by the
state or grantee.
2. Data element validation assesses the accuracy of participant
data records.
[[Page 30640]]
Data element validation is conducted by reviewing samples of
participant records against source documentation to ensure compliance
with Federal definitions.
Data Validation Background. WIA Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA
program staff have been conducting data validation for three years. The
states received training prior to beginning validation and receive
ongoing training and technical assistance from ETA throughout the
validation process. NFJP grantees have been conducting data validation
for two years, and have received ongoing training and technical
assistance during this period. SCSEP grantees will begin data
validation by the end of Calendar Year (CY) 2007. Indian and Native
American program grantees will pilot validation by 2008.
Resources. The requirement to perform validation derives from
states' and grantees' responsibility to provide accurate information on
program activities and outcomes to ETA. States and grantees are
expected to provide resources for conducting validation from their
administrative funds. Validation of program performance is a basic
responsibility of grantees, who are required to report on program
performance, in accordance with statutory provisions and Department of
Labor regulations (29 CFR 95.51 and 97.40). ETA has taken a number of
steps to minimize the resources needed for data validation, including
developing tools that states and grantees can use to conduct
validation. The estimates provided below indicate that annual staff
requirements for a state to continue data validation operations for WIA
Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA programs will be on average 792 hours
each year (or less than \1/2\ of a staff year) for all three programs
combined. For the NFJP, Indian and Native American program, and SCSEP
grantees, the annual staff requirements will be on average 103 hours
(or about \1/20\ of a staff year) for each grant.
Data Validation Tools. To reduce the startup costs of implementing
data validation, there are standardized software and user handbooks
that states and grantees can use to conduct data validation. Software
and handbooks have already been developed for the state programs and
the NFJP, and will be developed for the Indian and Native American
program and the SCSEP.
Software generates samples, worksheets, and reports on
data accuracy. For report validation, the software validates the
accuracy of aggregate reports that are generated by the state's or
grantee's reporting software and produces an error rate for each
reported count. For data element validation, the software generates a
sample of the participant records and data elements for the state or
grantee to validate. The software produces worksheets on which the
validator records information after checking the source documentation
in the sampled case files. The software calculates error rates for each
data element, with confidence intervals of 3.5 percent for large
states/grantees and 4 percent for small states/grantees.
User handbooks provide detailed information on software
installation, building and importing a validation file, and completing
report and data element validation. The handbooks also explain the
validation methodology, including sampling specifications and data
element validation instructions for each data element to be validated.
Data Recording and Reports. States and grantees submit their
validation results electronically to ETA in the same manner as other
reports. The results are stored in a data base in ETA's headquarters in
Washington, DC, and compiled in an annual validation accuracy report.
Training and Technical Assistance. ETA has provided validation
training and technical assistance to states in regional sessions on an
ongoing basis since the summer of 2003. Technical assistance has also
been provided on an ongoing basis to the NFJP grantees. Training for
the SCSEP will take place in CY 2007. Indian and Native American
program grantees will receive training prior to implementation. States
and grantees may obtain technical assistance on validation procedures
and the use of the validation tools by contacting ETA's Office of
Performance and Technology.
Revisions have been made for two reasons. First, for the initial
information collection request, ETA combined the burden estimates for
all the programs since all would be incurring start-up burden. This
time, ETA has disaggregated the estimates for each program to
distinguish those that are just beginning to implement data validation
and have yet to incur a startup burden, from those that have already
implemented data validation and will incur no new start-up burden when
the information collection is extended.
Second, some of the data elements to be validated have been revised
to reflect the changes made to specific program reporting requirements
and the definitions of the performance measures. These changes include:
The addition of WIA Title IB validation requirements for the National
Emergency Grants (NEG) and older youth funding streams; the deletion of
data elements from the WIA Title IB adult, dislocated worker, and
younger youth program validation requirements; and the deletion of data
elements from the TAA validation requirements. The new data element
requirements are documented in the programs' data validation user
handbooks.
II. Review Focus
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments
which:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submissions of responses.
III. Current Actions
Type of Review: Revision of Approved Collection.
Agency: Employment and Training Administration.
Title: Data Validation Requirement for Employment and Training
Programs
OMB Number: 1205-0448.
Recordkeeping: States and grantees must maintain complete records
of all validation activities for three years. The retention requirement
will apply to records of all validation activities, including files,
worksheets, reports, and source documentation.
Affected Public: State, local and tribal government entities and
private non-profit organizations.
Total Respondents: 318 (53 states and 265 grantees).
Frequency: Complete data validation annually.
Total Responses: 424 (3 responses each for the 53 states and 1
response for each of the 265 grantees).
Average Annual Time per Respondent: 792 hours for states'
validations for WIA Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA combined, and 103
hours per grantee for the NFJP, Indian
[[Page 30641]]
and Native American program, and the SCSEP.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 41,970 for all 53 states plus 27,361 for
all 265 grantees when fully implemented.
Average Annual Cost per Respondent/Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintaining): $25,736 on average per state and $1,364,025 per year for
all states to complete validation for the WIA Title IB, Wagner-Peyser,
and TAA programs. The estimated annual cost of conducting validation
for the NFJP, Indian and Native American program, and the SCSEP
grantees is $1,960 on average per grantee and $519,301 total.
Total Burden Hours (start-up): There is no startup burden for WIA
Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA programs because this was incurred
when data validation was first implemented three years ago. NFJP
grantees have been conducting data validation for two years and have
received ongoing training and technical assistance during this period
SCSEP grantees will begin data validation by the end of CY 2007. Indian
and Native American program grantees will pilot validation by 2008.
Startup activities for the Indian and Native American program and SCSEP
will require an additional 75 hours on average per grantee in the
initial year of validation for a total of 16,072 start-up burden hours.
Total Burden Cost (start-up): $1,311 for each of the 74 SCSEP
grants and $847 for each of the 141 Indian and Native American program
grantee for 281,931 combined for the 215 grantees in the initial year
of validation for both the Indian and Native American program and the
SCSEP, and $0 for NFJP and the WIA Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA
programs.
Data validation, when fully implemented, is estimated to require an
annual burden of 69,331 hours and $1,883,326 for operating all six
programs subject to the validation requirement. And as stated earlier,
an additional 16,072 hours and $281,931 in start-up burden in the
initial year of validation is estimated for the Indian and Native
American and SCSEP grantees. These estimates represent a significant
decrease in costs and a slight increase in hours from the current OMB
inventory for ETA data validation. The change is attributable to three
factors:
The elimination of start-up costs for WIA, Wagner-Peyser,
and TAA programs, and the NFJP validation;
Updates in the number of grantees required to conduct data
validation; and
Updates to the hourly cost of conducting data validation
for grantee staff.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be
summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and
Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also
become a matter of public record.
Dated: May 21, 2007.
John R. Beverly, III,
Administrator, Office of Performance and Technology.
[FR Doc. E7-10558 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
