Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, Sectoral Strategies and Employer Engagement Portfolio, New Collection, 82641-82643 [2024-23527]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices
substance order or prescription is one
that is ‘‘issued for a legitimate medical
purpose by an individual practitioner
acting in the usual course of his
professional practice.’’ 21 CFR
1306.04(a). A ‘‘practitioner must
establish and maintain a bona fide
doctor-patient relationship in order to
act ‘in the usual course of . . .
professional practice’ and to issue a
prescription for a ‘legitimate medical
purpose.’ ’’ Dewey C. Mackay, M.D., 75
FR at 49973. Here, Registrant admits
that her prescribing of controlled
substances was outside the usual course
of professional practice and that her
conduct reflects negative experience in
prescribing controlled substances.
RFAAX 2, at 1–3.
Regarding the standards for adequacy
of medical records, Florida law requires
that medical documentation must
‘‘contain sufficient information to
identify the patient, support the
diagnosis, justify the treatment and
document the course and results of
treatment accurately, by including, at a
minimum, patient histories;
examination results; test results; records
of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or
administered; reports of consultations
and hospitalizations; and copies of
records or reports or other
documentation obtained from other
health care practitioners. . . .’’ Fla.
Admin. Code section 64B8–9.003(3);
RFAAX 2, at 2. Florida law also requires
that medical documentation contain
‘‘sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate
why the course of treatment was
undertaken.’’ Id. section 64B8–9.003(2);
RFAAX 2, at 2. Here, Registrant admits
that she issued 60 prescriptions for
controlled substances to six individuals
without maintaining any medical
documentation whatsoever to justify the
prescribing of controlled substances.
RFAAX 2, at 2–5.
Prior to prescribing a controlled
substance for acute pain, Florida law
requires practitioners to maintain
‘‘accurate and complete’’ medical
documentation that includes, but is not
limited to, the patient’s medical history
and physical examination; diagnostic
results; consultations; treatment
objectives; discussion of risks and
benefits; treatments; medications;
instructions and agreements; drug
testing results; and periodic reviews.
Fla. Stat. section 456.44(3); Fla. Admin.
Code section 64B8–9.013(2); RFAAX 2,
at 2. Here, not only does Registrant
admit that she issued 60 prescriptions
for controlled substances to six
individuals without maintaining any
medical documentation, she admits she
never conducted the physical
examinations she was required to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Oct 10, 2024
Jkt 265001
document. RFAAX 2, at 2–5. Registrant
further admits that nine of these
prescriptions were issued in response to
text messages requesting the controlled
substances. Id.
Based on Registrant’s admissions, the
Agency finds that from August 21, 2021,
to February 16, 2023, Registrant issued
60 prescriptions to six individuals
outside the usual course of professional
practice and in violation of Federal and
State laws. 21 CFR 1306.04(a); Fla. Stat.
section 456.44(3); Fla. Admin. Code
sections 64B8–9.003(2)–(3), 64B8–
9.013(2).
In sum, the Agency finds Registrant’s
continued registration to be inconsistent
with the public interest after balancing
the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). The
Agency also finds that Registrant failed
to provide sufficient mitigating evidence
to rebut the Government’s prima facie
case.
III. Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has
established sufficient grounds to revoke
Registrant’s registration, the burden
shifts to the registrant to show why she
can be entrusted with the responsibility
carried by a registration. Garret Howard
Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882, 18910 (2018).
‘‘[T]rust is necessarily a fact-dependent
determination based’’ on individual
circumstances; therefore, the Agency
looks at factors such as ‘‘the acceptance
of responsibility and the credibility of
that acceptance as it relates to the
probability of repeat violations or
behavior.’’ Robert Wayne Locklear,
M.D., 86 FR 33738, 33746 (2021). To be
effective, acceptance of responsibility
must be unequivocal. Mohammed
Asgar, M.D., 83 FR 29569, 29573 (2018).
When a registrant has committed acts
inconsistent with the public interest,
she must both accept responsibility and
demonstrate that she has undertaken
corrective measures. Holiday CVS,
L.L.C., d/b/a CVS/Pharmacy Nos. 219
and 5195, 77 FR 62316, 62339 (2012)
(internal quotations omitted).
Here, Registrant did not request a
hearing, submit a corrective action plan,
respond to the OSC/ISO, or otherwise
avail herself of the opportunity to refute
the Government’s case. As such,
Registrant has made no representations
as to her future compliance with the
CSA, has not demonstrated that she can
be entrusted with registration, and has
not accepted responsibility for the
misconduct. Accordingly, the Agency
will order the revocation of Registrant’s
registration.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
82641
824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. AP6641713 issued to
Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O. Further,
pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending
applications of Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O.,
to renew or modify this registration, as
well as any other pending application of
Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O., for additional
registration in Florida. This Order is
effective November 12, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on October 2, 2024, by Administrator
Anne Milgram. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DEA. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DEA Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
DEA. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024–23511 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, Sectoral
Strategies and Employer Engagement
Portfolio, New Collection
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation
Office, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of information collection;
request for comment.
AGENCY:
The Department of Labor
(DOL), 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). 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
82642
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices
is properly assessed. Currently, the
Department of Labor is soliciting
comments concerning the collection of
data about the Sectoral Strategies and
Employer Engagement Portfolio. 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
December 10, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either one of the following methods:
Email: ChiefEvaluationOffice@dol.gov;
Mail or Courier: Evan Murphy, Chief
Evaluation Office, OASP, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room S–2312, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210. Instructions: Please submit
one copy of your comments by only one
method. All submissions received must
include the agency name and OMB
Control Number identified above for
this information collection. Comments,
including any personal information
provided, become a matter of public
record. They will also be summarized
and/or included in the request for OMB
approval of the information collection
request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Evan Murphy by email at
ChiefEvaluationOffice@dol.gov or by
phone at (202) 693–0224.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background: The Chief Evaluation
Office (CEO) of the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL) intends to design and
conduct an evaluation to document the
implementation and assess the success
of the three grant programs within the
Sectoral Strategies and Employer
Engagement Portfolio (SSEEP): Building
Pathways to Infrastructure Jobs Grant
(BP), Nursing Expansion Grant (NEG),
and Critical Sectors Job Quality Grant
(Critical Sectors). The goal of this
project is to build knowledge about
sector strategies. The SSEEP evaluation
includes three components: (1) an
implementation evaluation to
understand program implementation,
partnership development, and lessons
for all 34 BP and 25 NEG grantees as
well as all 5 Tier 2 Critical Sectors
grantees; (2) an impact and cost-benefit
evaluability assessment of the Building
Pathways to Infrastructure Jobs Grant
(BP) and Nursing Expansion Grant
(NEG) programs to examine the
feasibility of conducting a rigorous
evaluation with these grant programs,
and; (3) a formative study to identify
effective strategies for reducing barriers
to employment, engaging and working
in partnership with employers, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Oct 10, 2024
Jkt 265001
applying the U.S. Department of Labor’s
Good Jobs Principles to critical sector
occupations.
This Federal Register Notice provides
the opportunity to comment on
proposed data collection instruments
that will be used in the implementation
evaluation: a grantee survey for the BP
and NEG grantees, a grantee survey for
CS grantees, a partner survey, an
employer survey, and semi-structured
site visit discussion guides for program
staff, partners, employers, and
participants.
1. Grantee Survey for BP and NEG
Grantees. We will field a survey to the
34 BP grantees and 25 NEG grantees.
The grantee survey will systematically
collect information on program
operations and the types of activities
and services provided across grantees.
The grantee survey will be designed to
primarily elicit closed-ended responses
to help ensure comparability and
completeness of responses and to allow
for statistical summaries and analysis.
The survey will be modular such that
each topic and questions within that
topic can be tailored to the specific
aspects of each grant program. The
grantee survey will be programmed and
administered online using ConfirmIT or
a similar survey program.
2. Grantee Survey for CS grantees. We
will field a survey to the five Critical
Sectors Tier 2 grantees. Similar to the
survey for NEG and BP grantees, this
survey will systematically collect
information on program operations and
the types of activities and services
provided across grantees. The grantee
survey will be designed to primarily
elicit closed-ended responses to help
ensure comparability and completeness
of responses and to facilitate analysis.
The survey will be modular such that
each topic and questions within that
topic can be tailored to the specific
aspects of each grant program. The
grantee survey will be programmed
using ConfirmIT or a similar survey
software, and will be administered by
study team members over the phone
with grantee representatives.
3. Partner Survey. We will field a
survey to a subset of partners identified
by grantees in response to the grantee
survey and from their grant
applications. The partner survey will
contribute important information about
the nature of partnerships between
partner organizations and lead grantee
organizations. The survey will be
modular such that each topic and
questions within that topic can be
tailored to the specific aspects of each
grant program. The partner survey will
be programmed and administered
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
online using ConfirmIT and fielded to
partners of BP and NEG grantees.
4. Employer Survey. We will field a
survey to employers identified by
grantees in response to the grantee
survey. The employer survey will
contribute important data about
employer engagement strategies,
employer roles in the sector strategies
grant programs, and employer
perceptions of the program. The survey
will be modular such that each topic
and questions within that topic can be
tailored to the specific aspects of each
grant program. The employer survey
will be programmed through ConfirmIT
and administered by evaluation team
members over phone/webinar to help
obtain complete, clear responses.
5. Semi-structured discussion guides
for program staff, partners, employers,
and participants. We will conduct site
visits to approximately 17 grantees
across the BP, NEG, and Critical Sectors
programs. Site visits will document the
program context, program organization
and staffing, program components
including education/training activities
and support services, and other relevant
aspects of sector strategies programs.
During the visits, site teams will
interview key grantee administrators,
program staff, partners (e.g., training
providers, support service providers),
and employers using discussion guides.
During these site visits, we will also
conduct semi-structured interviews
with program participants. The
discussion guides will also include
guides for follow-up phone interviews.
In the final year of the grant, we will
conduct semi-structured follow-up
phone calls with grantee staff to
document changes that occurred after
our visits, lessons and sustainability
plans.
II. Desired Focus of Comments:
Currently, the Department of Labor is
soliciting comments concerning the
above data collection for the Sectoral
Strategies and Employer Engagement
Portfolio Program Evaluation. DOL is
particularly interested in comments that
do the following:
Æ evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance functions of
the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
Æ evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
burden estimate of the proposed
information collection, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions;
Æ enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
Æ minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
82643
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology—
for example, permitting electronic
submissions of responses.
III. Current Actions: At this time, the
Department of Labor is requesting
clearance for the grantee survey, partner
survey, employer survey, and semistructured site visit discussion guides
for grantee staff, partners, employers,
and participants.
Type of Review: New information
collection request.
OMB Control Number: 1290–0NEW.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households.
Comments submitted in response to
this 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.
ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS
Type of instrument
(form/activity)
Number of
respondents
Grantee survey for BP and NEG .........................................
Grantee survey for CS .........................................................
Partner survey ......................................................................
Employer survey ..................................................................
Semi-structured site visit discussion guide: grantee staff ...
Semi-structured site visit discussion guide: partners ..........
Semi-structured site visit discussion guide: employers .......
Semi-structured site visit discussion guide: participants .....
Semi-structured follow-up phone interview guide ................
1 20
Total ..............................................................................
Number of
responses per
respondent
Total
number of
responses
Average
burden time
per
response
(hours)
Estimated
burden
hours
98
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
2
98
98
34
17
11
23
8
1.5
1.5
.5
.5
1.5
1
1
1
1.5
30
3
49
49
51
17
11
23
12
311
........................
311
........................
244
22
3 98
4 98
5 34
6 17
7 11
8 23
1 Assumes
100% response rate from 59 grantees involved in the BP and NEG implementation study over the three-year clearance period. This
number is rounded up from 19.67.
2 Assumes 100% response rate from 5 grantees involved in the CS implementation study over the three-year clearance period. This number is
rounded up from 1.67.
3 Assumes approximately 5 partners per 59 grantees over the three-year clearance period. This number has been rounded down from 98.33.
4 Assumes approximately 5 employers per 59 grantees over the three-year clearance period. This number has been rounded up from 98.33.
5 Assumes approximately 6 staff per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the three-year clearance period.
6 Assumes approximately 3 partners per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the three-year clearance period.
7 Assumes approximately 2 employers per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the three-year clearance period. This number
has been rounded down from 11.33.
8 Assumes approximately 4 worker-participants per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the three-year clearance period. This
number has been rounded up from 22.67.
9 Assumes 2 staff members per 12 grantees (six each from BP & NEG) over the three-year clearance period.
Alix Gould-Werth,
Chief Evaluation Officer, U.S. Department of
Labor.
[FR Doc. 2024–23527 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–HX–P
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE
ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
Federal Council on the Arts and the
Humanities
Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel
Advisory Committee
Federal Council on the Arts
and the Humanities; National
Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, notice is
hereby given that the Federal Council
on the Arts and the Humanities will
hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts
International Indemnity Panel.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Oct 10, 2024
Jkt 265001
The meeting will be held on
Thursday, November 14, 2024, from
12:00 p.m. until adjourned.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held by
videoconference originating at the
National Endowment for the Arts,
Washington, DC 20506.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee
Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW,
Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506,
(202) 606–8322; evoyatzis@neh.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
purpose of the meeting is for panel
review, discussion, evaluation, and
recommendation on applications for
Certificates of Indemnity submitted to
the Federal Council on the Arts and the
Humanities, for exhibitions beginning
on or after January 1, 2025. Because the
meeting will consider proprietary
financial and commercial data provided
in confidence by indemnity applicants,
and material that is likely to disclose
trade secrets or other privileged or
confidential information, and because it
is important to keep the values of
objects to be indemnified and the
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
methods of transportation and security
measures confidential, I have
determined that that the meeting will be
closed to the public pursuant to
subsection (c)(4) of section 552b of title
5, United States Code. I have made this
determination under the authority
granted me by the Chairman’s
Delegation of Authority to Close
Advisory Committee Meetings, dated
April 15, 2016.
Dated: October 7, 2024.
Jessica Graves,
Paralegal Specialist, National Endowment for
the Humanities.
[FR Doc. 2024–23522 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536–01–P
NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT
CORPORATION
Sunshine Act Meetings
2:00 p.m., Thursday,
October 17, 2024.
TIME AND DATE:
PLACE:
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
via ZOOM.
11OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 198 (Friday, October 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82641-82643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23527]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, Sectoral Strategies and Employer Engagement
Portfolio, New Collection
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation
Office, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (DOL), 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). 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
[[Page 82642]]
is properly assessed. Currently, the Department of Labor is soliciting
comments concerning the collection of data about the Sectoral
Strategies and Employer Engagement Portfolio. 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 December 10, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either one of the following
methods: Email: [email protected]; Mail or Courier: Evan
Murphy, Chief Evaluation Office, OASP, U.S. Department of Labor, Room
S-2312, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Instructions:
Please submit one copy of your comments by only one method. All
submissions received must include the agency name and OMB Control
Number identified above for this information collection. Comments,
including any personal information provided, become a matter of public
record. They will also be summarized and/or included in the request for
OMB approval of the information collection request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Murphy by email at
[email protected] or by phone at (202) 693-0224.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background: The Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) of the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) intends to design and conduct an evaluation
to document the implementation and assess the success of the three
grant programs within the Sectoral Strategies and Employer Engagement
Portfolio (SSEEP): Building Pathways to Infrastructure Jobs Grant (BP),
Nursing Expansion Grant (NEG), and Critical Sectors Job Quality Grant
(Critical Sectors). The goal of this project is to build knowledge
about sector strategies. The SSEEP evaluation includes three
components: (1) an implementation evaluation to understand program
implementation, partnership development, and lessons for all 34 BP and
25 NEG grantees as well as all 5 Tier 2 Critical Sectors grantees; (2)
an impact and cost-benefit evaluability assessment of the Building
Pathways to Infrastructure Jobs Grant (BP) and Nursing Expansion Grant
(NEG) programs to examine the feasibility of conducting a rigorous
evaluation with these grant programs, and; (3) a formative study to
identify effective strategies for reducing barriers to employment,
engaging and working in partnership with employers, and applying the
U.S. Department of Labor's Good Jobs Principles to critical sector
occupations.
This Federal Register Notice provides the opportunity to comment on
proposed data collection instruments that will be used in the
implementation evaluation: a grantee survey for the BP and NEG
grantees, a grantee survey for CS grantees, a partner survey, an
employer survey, and semi-structured site visit discussion guides for
program staff, partners, employers, and participants.
1. Grantee Survey for BP and NEG Grantees. We will field a survey
to the 34 BP grantees and 25 NEG grantees. The grantee survey will
systematically collect information on program operations and the types
of activities and services provided across grantees. The grantee survey
will be designed to primarily elicit closed-ended responses to help
ensure comparability and completeness of responses and to allow for
statistical summaries and analysis. The survey will be modular such
that each topic and questions within that topic can be tailored to the
specific aspects of each grant program. The grantee survey will be
programmed and administered online using ConfirmIT or a similar survey
program.
2. Grantee Survey for CS grantees. We will field a survey to the
five Critical Sectors Tier 2 grantees. Similar to the survey for NEG
and BP grantees, this survey will systematically collect information on
program operations and the types of activities and services provided
across grantees. The grantee survey will be designed to primarily
elicit closed-ended responses to help ensure comparability and
completeness of responses and to facilitate analysis. The survey will
be modular such that each topic and questions within that topic can be
tailored to the specific aspects of each grant program. The grantee
survey will be programmed using ConfirmIT or a similar survey software,
and will be administered by study team members over the phone with
grantee representatives.
3. Partner Survey. We will field a survey to a subset of partners
identified by grantees in response to the grantee survey and from their
grant applications. The partner survey will contribute important
information about the nature of partnerships between partner
organizations and lead grantee organizations. The survey will be
modular such that each topic and questions within that topic can be
tailored to the specific aspects of each grant program. The partner
survey will be programmed and administered online using ConfirmIT and
fielded to partners of BP and NEG grantees.
4. Employer Survey. We will field a survey to employers identified
by grantees in response to the grantee survey. The employer survey will
contribute important data about employer engagement strategies,
employer roles in the sector strategies grant programs, and employer
perceptions of the program. The survey will be modular such that each
topic and questions within that topic can be tailored to the specific
aspects of each grant program. The employer survey will be programmed
through ConfirmIT and administered by evaluation team members over
phone/webinar to help obtain complete, clear responses.
5. Semi-structured discussion guides for program staff, partners,
employers, and participants. We will conduct site visits to
approximately 17 grantees across the BP, NEG, and Critical Sectors
programs. Site visits will document the program context, program
organization and staffing, program components including education/
training activities and support services, and other relevant aspects of
sector strategies programs. During the visits, site teams will
interview key grantee administrators, program staff, partners (e.g.,
training providers, support service providers), and employers using
discussion guides. During these site visits, we will also conduct semi-
structured interviews with program participants. The discussion guides
will also include guides for follow-up phone interviews. In the final
year of the grant, we will conduct semi-structured follow-up phone
calls with grantee staff to document changes that occurred after our
visits, lessons and sustainability plans.
II. Desired Focus of Comments: Currently, the Department of Labor
is soliciting comments concerning the above data collection for the
Sectoral Strategies and Employer Engagement Portfolio Program
Evaluation. DOL is particularly interested in comments that do the
following:
[cir] evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
[cir] evaluate the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions;
[cir] enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
[cir] minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who
[[Page 82643]]
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology--for example, permitting
electronic submissions of responses.
III. Current Actions: At this time, the Department of Labor is
requesting clearance for the grantee survey, partner survey, employer
survey, and semi-structured site visit discussion guides for grantee
staff, partners, employers, and participants.
Type of Review: New information collection request.
OMB Control Number: 1290-0NEW.
Affected Public: Individuals or households.
Comments submitted in response to this 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.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average burden
Type of instrument (form/ Number of Number of Total number time per Estimated
activity) respondents responses per of responses response burden hours
respondent (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grantee survey for BP and NEG... \1\ 20 1 20 1.5 30
Grantee survey for CS........... \2\ 2 1 2 1.5 3
Partner survey.................. \3\ 98 1 98 .5 49
Employer survey................. \4\ 98 1 98 .5 49
Semi-structured site visit \5\ 34 1 34 1.5 51
discussion guide: grantee staff
Semi-structured site visit \6\ 17 1 17 1 17
discussion guide: partners.....
Semi-structured site visit \7\ 11 1 11 1 11
discussion guide: employers....
Semi-structured site visit \8\ 23 1 23 1 23
discussion guide: participants.
Semi-structured follow-up phone \9\ 8 1 8 1.5 12
interview guide................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 311 .............. 311 .............. 244
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes 100% response rate from 59 grantees involved in the BP and NEG implementation study over the three-
year clearance period. This number is rounded up from 19.67.
\2\ Assumes 100% response rate from 5 grantees involved in the CS implementation study over the three-year
clearance period. This number is rounded up from 1.67.
\3\ Assumes approximately 5 partners per 59 grantees over the three-year clearance period. This number has been
rounded down from 98.33.
\4\ Assumes approximately 5 employers per 59 grantees over the three-year clearance period. This number has been
rounded up from 98.33.
\5\ Assumes approximately 6 staff per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the three-year
clearance period.
\6\ Assumes approximately 3 partners per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the three-year
clearance period.
\7\ Assumes approximately 2 employers per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the three-
year clearance period. This number has been rounded down from 11.33.
\8\ Assumes approximately 4 worker-participants per site visit grantee for approximately 17 site visits over the
three-year clearance period. This number has been rounded up from 22.67.
\9\ Assumes 2 staff members per 12 grantees (six each from BP & NEG) over the three-year clearance period.
Alix Gould-Werth,
Chief Evaluation Officer, U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2024-23527 Filed 10-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-HX-P
