Proposed Information Collection for Growing America Through Entrepreneurship (GATE) II Evaluation; Comment Request, 25723-25725 [2011-10938]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
group-term life insurance contracts, and
the Plans will pay no more than
adequate consideration for the
insurance. Verizon, Verizon Wireless
and/or EIC will not profit from the
reinsurance arrangement at the expense
of the Plans or the Affected Participants.
Also, the Affected Participants are
afforded insurance protection from
Prudential at competitive rates arrived
at through arm’s-length negotiations.
Prudential is rated ‘‘A+’’ by the A. M.
Best Company, whose insurance ratings
are widely used in financial and
regulatory circles. Prudential has assets
in excess of $667 billion. Prudential will
continue to have the ultimate
responsibility in the event of loss to pay
insurance benefits to the employee’s
beneficiary. The Applicants represent
that EIC is a sound, viable company
which is dependent upon insurance
customers that are unrelated to itself
and its affiliates for premium revenue.
7. The Applicants represent that the
proposed reinsurance transaction will
meet all of the conditions of PTE 79–41
covering direct insurance transactions:
(a) EIC is a party in interest with respect
to the Plans (within the meaning of
section 3(14)(G) of the Act) by reason of
stock affiliation with Verizon and
Verizon Wireless, which maintain the
Plans.
(b) EIC is licensed to do business in
the State of Vermont.
(c) EIC has undergone an examination
by an independent certified public
accountant for its fiscal year ending
December 31, 2009.
(d) EIC has received a Certificate of
Authority from its domiciliary State (as
defined in Act section 3(10)), the State
of Vermont, which has neither been
revoked nor suspended.
(e) The Plans will pay no more than
adequate consideration for the
insurance. The proposed transaction
will not in any way affect the cost to the
insureds of the group-term life
insurance transaction.
(f) No commissions, costs or other
expenses will be paid with respect to
the acquisition of reinsurance by
Prudential from EIC.
(g) For each taxable year of EIC, the
‘‘gross premiums and annuity
considerations received’’ in that taxable
year for group life and health insurance
(both direct insurance and reinsurance)
for all employee benefit plans (and their
employers) with respect to which EIC is
a party in interest by reason of a
relationship to such employer described
in section 3(14)(E) or (G) of the Act will
not exceed 50% of the ‘‘gross premiums
and annuity considerations received’’ by
EIC from all lines of insurance in that
taxable year. All of the premium income
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
of EIC comes from reinsurance. EIC has
received no premiums for the groupterm life insurance in the past.
8. In summary, the Applicants
represent that the proposed transaction
will meet the criteria of section 408(a)
of the Act because: (a) Plan participants
and beneficiaries are afforded insurance
protection by Prudential, an ‘‘A+’’ rated
group insurer, at competitive market
rates arrived at through arm’s-length
negotiations; (b) EIC is a sound, viable
insurance company which does a
substantial amount of public business
outside its affiliated group of
companies; and (c) each of the
protections provided to the Plans and
the Affected Participants and their
beneficiaries by PTE 79–41 will be met
under the proposed reinsurance
transaction.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General Information
The attention of interested persons is
directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the
subject of an exemption under section
408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve
a fiduciary or other party in interest or
disqualified person from certain other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including any prohibited transaction
provisions to which the exemption does
not apply and the general fiduciary
responsibility provisions of section 404
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
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 2nd day of
May, 2011.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2011–10999 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
Gary
H. Lefkowitz of the Department,
telephone (202) 693–8546. (This is not
a toll-free number.)
PO 00000
25723
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Proposed Information Collection for
Growing America Through
Entrepreneurship (GATE) II Evaluation;
Comment Request
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Labor
(Department), 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 on a new data
collection for the GATE II Evaluation. A
copy of the proposed information
collection request (ICR) can be obtained
by contacting the office listed below in
the addressee section of this notice.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted to the office listed in the
addressee section below on or before
July 5, 2011.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
25724
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
Richard Muller, Office of
Policy Development and Research, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N–5641,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202)
693–3680 (this is not a toll-free
number), fax number (202) 693–2766 or
e-mail: Muller.Richard@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
I. Background
Many individuals have the motivation
and skills to develop small businesses
but lack business expertise and training.
Recognizing this untapped potential,
ETA created and evaluated a
demonstration program designed to
assist individuals interested in selfemployment to develop their
businesses—Project GATE. In helping
individuals develop businesses, Project
GATE promoted both workforce and
economic development. Project GATE
was an experimental design
demonstration that investigated the
impact of providing entrepreneurship
training services to individuals
interested in starting or growing a
business. The cornerstone of the
evaluation was random assignment. A
total of 4,198 applicants to GATE were
randomly assigned to either a program
group or a control group. The project
was implemented in both rural and
urban locations in Maine, Pennsylvania,
and Minnesota from 2002 to 2009.
In Project GATE, treatment group
members were offered an assessment of
their business needs, classroom training,
one-on-one technical assistance, and
assistance in applying for business
financing. A telephone survey of
participants and control group members
was conducted to collect three waves of
data at approximately six months after
random assignment, 18 months after
random assignment, and 60 months
after random assignment. A process
evaluation as well as an impact
evaluation of the effectiveness of the
GATE model were conducted utilizing
site visits, surveys, and administrative
data.
The early impacts of Project GATE
services were reported to ETA in July
2008 (see Benus, J., McConnell, S.,
Bellotti, J., Shen, T., Fortson, K., &
Kahvecioglu, D. ‘‘Growing America
Through Entrepreneurship: Findings
from the Evaluation of Project GATE’’ U.
S. Department of Labor, Employment
and Training Administration, 2008).
The positive findings in this report led
the Department to issue a Solicitation
for Grant Applications (SGA) for States
to implement the GATE model of
entrepreneurship services targeted at
older and rural WIA dislocated workers.
That is, unlike the first Project GATE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
demonstration, which was available to
all applicants, services under this new
demonstration (known as GATE II) were
targeted towards dislocated workers.
An evaluation of the GATE II grants
is necessary for policymakers and
program developers to determine
whether the model can be successfully
implemented for dislocated workers. A
follow-up survey, as envisioned in the
GATE II evaluation design, is the only
way to collect information on selfemployment experiences, receipt of
microenterprise services, and household
income.
GATE II will be evaluated using an
experimental design. Individuals that
submitted an application for GATE II in
each site and who met minimal
eligibility criteria are being randomly
assigned to either a program group or a
control group. Members of the program
group are eligible to receive GATE II
services, while members of the control
group are not eligible to receive GATE
II services, although they will not be
prohibited from receiving selfemployment services from other
sources.
As noted above, unlike the first
Project GATE demonstration, which was
available to all applicants, services
under GATE II are targeted towards WIA
dislocated workers. In June 2008 grants
were awarded to implement GATE II in
four states—Alabama, Minnesota, North
Carolina, and Virginia. Two states,
Alabama and North Carolina, were
selected to target services to dislocated
workers in rural areas, while the two
other States, Minnesota and Virginia,
were selected to target dislocated
workers 45 years old and older.
The evaluation will address the
following key questions:
(1) What are the impacts of GATE II
on participants’ labor market and selfemployment outcomes?
(2) Does the program increase the use
of self-employment services?
(3) Does the program lead to an
increase in the completion of business
plans and applications and receipt of
loans?
(4) Does the program increase the
likelihood of self-employment?
(5) Does the program promote
employment and other aspects of
economic development?
(6) Does the program increase
employment, earnings, and satisfaction
with employment and reduce the
receipt of Unemployment Insurance (UI)
and public assistance?
(7) Is GATE II effective in rural areas
and for older workers?
(8) Does the effectiveness of the
program vary by population subgroup?
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Addressing these questions will
involve conducting process and impact
analyses. The process evaluation is
based on information collected during
two rounds of site visits to each site,
during which detailed information will
be collected on the implementation of
the program from interviews with
program staff, observations of services,
and focus groups with program
participants. Data will also be collected
using a Participant Tracking System
developed specifically for the study.
The impact evaluation will involve
comparing outcomes of members of the
program group with outcomes of
members of the control group. Data on
these outcomes will be collected from
UI benefit records and quarterly wage
records, and a follow-up survey that
will occur approximately 18 months
after random assignment.
II. Review Focus
The Department 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
The follow-up survey, which is the
subject of this notice, will be conducted
by telephone approximately 18 months
following random assignment. The
survey will collect data unavailable
from administrative records. The survey
is designed to collect detailed
information about sample members’
participation and experiences in
receiving self-employment services,
their experiences starting a business,
their experiences in jobs working for
someone else, their receipt of public
assistance, and some background data
on their socio-economic and
demographic characteristics. It is also
designed to collect their experiences in
self-employment and developing small
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
25725
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
businesses, their experiences in jobs
working for someone else, and their
income and receipt of public assistance.
Type of Review: New
Agency: Employment and Training
Administration
Title: Partnership for Self-Sufficiency:
Growing America Through
Entrepreneurship
OMB Control No.: 1205–0NEW
Affected Public: Individuals
Frequency
GATE II FOLLOW–UP SURVEY .................................................................
1,584
Once ........
1,584
30 minutes
792
Totals ....................................................................................................
....................
..................
1,584
..................
792
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
request; they will also become a matter
of public record.
Dated: April 29, 2011.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary for Employment and
Training Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–10938 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0018]
Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance,
Availability
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Issuance and
Availability of Regulatory Guide 8.18,
Revision 2, ‘‘Information Relevant to
Ensuring that Occupational Radiation
Exposures at Medical Institutions will
be As Low As is Reasonably
Achievable.’’
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hector L. Rodriguez-Luccioni, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone:
301–251–7685 or e-mail:
Hector.Rodriguez-Lucionni@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing a revision
to an existing guide in the agency’s
‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series
was developed to describe and make
available to the public information such
as methods that are acceptable to the
NRC staff for implementing specific
parts of the agency’s regulations,
techniques that the staff uses in
evaluating specific problems or
postulated accidents, and data that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
staff needs in its review of applications
for permits and licenses.
Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 8.18,
‘‘Information Relevant to Ensuring that
Occupational Radiation Exposures at
Medical Institutions will be As Low As
is Reasonably Achievable,’’ was issued
with a temporary identification as Draft
Regulatory Guide, DG–8037.
This guide is directed specifically
toward medical licensees and
recommends methods that the staff of
the NRC considers acceptable to
maintain occupational exposures as low
as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) in
medical institutions. In a medical
institution, certain persons other than
employees are exposed to radiation from
licensed radioactive material. These
persons include visitors and patients
other than those being treated with
radioactive material. This guide
addresses the protection of these
individuals. The content of this guide is
also applicable to veterinary medical
institutions, insofar as specific
diagnostic or therapeutic procedures are
performed. Similar protection practices
are applicable for keeping employee and
visitor exposures ALARA, whether the
patients are animal or human.
II. Further Information
In January 2010, DG–8037 was
published with a public comment
period of 60 days from the issuance of
the guide. The public comment period
closed on March 19, 2010.
You can access publicly available
documents related to this notice using
the following methods:
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR):
The public may examine and copy (for
a fee) publicly available documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1 F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or
received at the NRC are available
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/. From this
page, the public can gain entry into
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Total
responses
Average
time per
respondent
Total
respondents
Burden
(hours)
ADAMS, which provides text and image
files of NRC’s public documents (https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html).
If you do not have access to ADAMS or
if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC’s PDR reference staff at 1–800–
397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail
to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. Regulatory
Guide 8.18, Revision 2 is available
electronically under ADAMS Accession
Number ML102350460. The regulatory
analysis may be found under ADAMS
Accession Number ML102350474 and
the staff’s responses to the public
comments received are located under
Accession Number ML102350467.
Federal Rulemaking Website: Public
comments and supporting materials
related to this notice can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
on Docket ID: NRC–2010–0018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hector L. Rodriguez-Luccioni, Project
Manager, Regulatory Guide
Development Branch, Division of
Engineers, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Mail Stop: CSB–02A07M,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
Telephone: (301) 251–7685; fax number:
(301) 251–7422; e-mail:
Hector.Rodriguez-Lucionni@nrc.gov.
Regulatory guides are not
copyrighted, and Commission approval
is not required to reproduce them.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day
of April, 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Harriet Karagiannis,
Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development
Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of
Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 2011–10876 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25723-25725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10938]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Proposed Information Collection for Growing America Through
Entrepreneurship (GATE) II Evaluation; Comment Request
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a
pre-clearance 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 on a new data collection for the GATE II
Evaluation. A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR)
can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee
section of this notice.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
addressee section below on or before July 5, 2011.
[[Page 25724]]
ADDRESSES: Richard Muller, Office of Policy Development and Research,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5641, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) 693-3680 (this is not a toll-free
number), fax number (202) 693-2766 or e-mail: Muller.Richard@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Many individuals have the motivation and skills to develop small
businesses but lack business expertise and training. Recognizing this
untapped potential, ETA created and evaluated a demonstration program
designed to assist individuals interested in self-employment to develop
their businesses--Project GATE. In helping individuals develop
businesses, Project GATE promoted both workforce and economic
development. Project GATE was an experimental design demonstration that
investigated the impact of providing entrepreneurship training services
to individuals interested in starting or growing a business. The
cornerstone of the evaluation was random assignment. A total of 4,198
applicants to GATE were randomly assigned to either a program group or
a control group. The project was implemented in both rural and urban
locations in Maine, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota from 2002 to 2009.
In Project GATE, treatment group members were offered an assessment
of their business needs, classroom training, one-on-one technical
assistance, and assistance in applying for business financing. A
telephone survey of participants and control group members was
conducted to collect three waves of data at approximately six months
after random assignment, 18 months after random assignment, and 60
months after random assignment. A process evaluation as well as an
impact evaluation of the effectiveness of the GATE model were conducted
utilizing site visits, surveys, and administrative data.
The early impacts of Project GATE services were reported to ETA in
July 2008 (see Benus, J., McConnell, S., Bellotti, J., Shen, T.,
Fortson, K., & Kahvecioglu, D. ``Growing America Through
Entrepreneurship: Findings from the Evaluation of Project GATE'' U. S.
Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 2008). The
positive findings in this report led the Department to issue a
Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) for States to implement the
GATE model of entrepreneurship services targeted at older and rural WIA
dislocated workers. That is, unlike the first Project GATE
demonstration, which was available to all applicants, services under
this new demonstration (known as GATE II) were targeted towards
dislocated workers.
An evaluation of the GATE II grants is necessary for policymakers
and program developers to determine whether the model can be
successfully implemented for dislocated workers. A follow-up survey, as
envisioned in the GATE II evaluation design, is the only way to collect
information on self-employment experiences, receipt of microenterprise
services, and household income.
GATE II will be evaluated using an experimental design. Individuals
that submitted an application for GATE II in each site and who met
minimal eligibility criteria are being randomly assigned to either a
program group or a control group. Members of the program group are
eligible to receive GATE II services, while members of the control
group are not eligible to receive GATE II services, although they will
not be prohibited from receiving self-employment services from other
sources.
As noted above, unlike the first Project GATE demonstration, which
was available to all applicants, services under GATE II are targeted
towards WIA dislocated workers. In June 2008 grants were awarded to
implement GATE II in four states--Alabama, Minnesota, North Carolina,
and Virginia. Two states, Alabama and North Carolina, were selected to
target services to dislocated workers in rural areas, while the two
other States, Minnesota and Virginia, were selected to target
dislocated workers 45 years old and older.
The evaluation will address the following key questions:
(1) What are the impacts of GATE II on participants' labor market
and self-employment outcomes?
(2) Does the program increase the use of self-employment services?
(3) Does the program lead to an increase in the completion of
business plans and applications and receipt of loans?
(4) Does the program increase the likelihood of self-employment?
(5) Does the program promote employment and other aspects of
economic development?
(6) Does the program increase employment, earnings, and
satisfaction with employment and reduce the receipt of Unemployment
Insurance (UI) and public assistance?
(7) Is GATE II effective in rural areas and for older workers?
(8) Does the effectiveness of the program vary by population
subgroup?
Addressing these questions will involve conducting process and
impact analyses. The process evaluation is based on information
collected during two rounds of site visits to each site, during which
detailed information will be collected on the implementation of the
program from interviews with program staff, observations of services,
and focus groups with program participants. Data will also be collected
using a Participant Tracking System developed specifically for the
study. The impact evaluation will involve comparing outcomes of members
of the program group with outcomes of members of the control group.
Data on these outcomes will be collected from UI benefit records and
quarterly wage records, and a follow-up survey that will occur
approximately 18 months after random assignment.
II. Review Focus
The Department 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
The follow-up survey, which is the subject of this notice, will be
conducted by telephone approximately 18 months following random
assignment. The survey will collect data unavailable from
administrative records. The survey is designed to collect detailed
information about sample members' participation and experiences in
receiving self-employment services, their experiences starting a
business, their experiences in jobs working for someone else, their
receipt of public assistance, and some background data on their socio-
economic and demographic characteristics. It is also designed to
collect their experiences in self-employment and developing small
[[Page 25725]]
businesses, their experiences in jobs working for someone else, and
their income and receipt of public assistance.
Type of Review: New
Agency: Employment and Training Administration
Title: Partnership for Self-Sufficiency: Growing America Through
Entrepreneurship
OMB Control No.: 1205-0NEW
Affected Public: Individuals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Average time per Burden
respondents Frequency responses respondent (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GATE II FOLLOW-UP SURVEY......... 1,584 Once.............. 1,584 30 minutes........ 792
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals....................... ........... .................. 1,584 .................. 792
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 request; they will also become a
matter of public record.
Dated: April 29, 2011.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-10938 Filed 5-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
