Rachel,
Here are answers to your questions below - I have answered them in RED beneath each question.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for more clarification if needed.
Thank you for the additional time.
Have a great Holiday.
Pam Eliadis
-----Original Message-----
From: Potter, Rachel F. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:
Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:31 PM
To: Potter, Rachel F.; Ingalls, Katrina;
Eliadis, Pam
Cc: Axt, Kathy; Carey, Sheila; Arrington, Angela
Subject: RE:
OMB comments on NSLDS data system
Pam and Katrina -
We will
need responses by COB Monday at the latest. OMB's review of
information
collections is intended to be 60 days only - this collection
is now on day 72
and ED has had almost a month to prepare responses. We
have already granted
an extension of the due date for responses and
unfortunately cannot grant
other.
Best,
Rachel
-----Original Message-----
From:
Ingalls, Katrina [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday,
December 14, 2006 2:30 PM
To: Eliadis, Pam
Cc: Ingalls, Katrina; Axt,
Kathy; Carey, Sheila; Potter, Rachel F.;
Arrington, Angela
Subject: RE:
OMB comments on NSLDS data system
Pam,
The timing is OMB's call at
this point. I will be here through next
Friday and will get what you
provide over to OMB. However, I want you to
know that Rachel Potter, Kathy
Axt and I will all be on leave the week
between Christmas and New Year's. If
your timeline is OK with Rachel - I
will get them over to Rachel at OMB and
get the info put into Rocis.
Since Rachel will be out for a week - you need
to realize that your
responses may not get reviewed until she gets back after
the 1st.
I will put Rachel on this email so Rachel knows when you
anticipate the
responses coming to her. She can get back to you if she has a
problem
with this timeline. Thanks.
Katrina
-----Original
Message-----
From: Eliadis, Pam
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:03
PM
To: Ingalls, Katrina; Fontana, Matteo
Cc: Axt, Kathy
Subject: Re:
OMB comments on NSLDS data system
I have put together responses for
the most part. I hope to get them in
the system by mid next week as I
need assistance in getting the info in.
Is this
ok?
Pam
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless
Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Ingalls, Katrina
To:
Eliadis, Pam; Fontana, Matteo
CC: Ingalls, Katrina; Axt, Kathy
Sent: Thu
Dec 14 12:25:04 2006
Subject: FW: OMB comments on NSLDS data
system
Pam and Matt,
Please let Rachel (and me) know where you are
with your responses to
OMB's questions on the NSLDS questions.
Thanks.
Katrina
-----Original Message-----
From: Potter, Rachel F.
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:
Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:55 AM
To: Ingalls, Katrina
Subject: RE: OMB
comments on NSLDS data system
Katrina -
What is the status of
ED's response on this? Thanks.
_____
From:
Potter, Rachel F.
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:44 PM
To: 'Ingalls,
Katrina'
Cc: Axt, Kathy; Eliadis, Pam; Fontana, Matteo
Subject: RE: OMB
comments on NSLDS data system
Katrina -
12/6 is fine; however,
this is an extension over OMB's normal 60 day
review, so we will not be able
to provide an extension any longer than
that.
As for comment #2 below,
we need to know what data elements we are
granting approval for and to have a
record of those approval data
elements in our files (ROCIS). We
are somewhat flexible regarding the
exact format. For similar
collections in the past, we have approved
screenshots or more basic documents
that show the questions/ potential
responses from individuals. Again,
the basic point is that we know
exactly what information we giving you
approval to collect.
As for your comments on the instructions, we
generally consider
instructions to be part of an approved information
collection, so please
include them for the ICs for which they were
inadvertently excluded. I
have opened ROCIS up for you to make those
changes.
Happy Thanksgiving!
- Rachel
_____
From: Ingalls, Katrina [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday,
November 21, 2006 12:37 PM
To: Potter, Rachel F.
Cc: Ingalls, Katrina;
Axt, Kathy; Eliadis, Pam; Fontana, Matteo
Subject: RE: OMB comments on NSLDS
data system
Rachel,
There are two sponsor's on this
collection. Pam Eliadis (one of the
sponsor's) is here today and then is out
of the office until Dec 4th.
The second sponsor, Matt Fontana, is already out
on leave and will not
be back until sometime next week. It would be
very helpful to both of
the sponsors to have until 12/6 to prepare the
responses to your
comments. Would that be possible?
I do have a
question about comment #2. I want to be able to advise Pam
and
Matt on exactly what you want to fulfill this requirement. Do you
want
the system specs? I just checked with Pam - and they have them -
but
they are huge. She can get those for you - but will have to burn a
CD
for you.
If you want a copy of the NSLDS instructions that go with those
three
respondent groupings that were not included, the sponsor has told
me
that these were inadvertently left out of the package but they can
send
them to me to be included in Rocis. The NSLDS instructions
were
already provided in ROCIS for the GA's and for the Serviced Schools
-
Perkins, however, they were not included for the three other groups
in
the initial package. (That was the reason for the note I put in
Rocis
"There is no specific instrument that relates specifically to this
group
of respondents since all respondents use the same NSLDS system".)
I
inserted this note for three groups: the NON-Serviced Schools -
other
data, Serviced schools - other data, and for non-serviced schools
-
Perkins. Do you want the instructions added to ROCIS for these
three
groups?
I appreciate your help with this package. Hope you
have a good holiday.
Thanks.
Katrina
-----Original
Message-----
From: Potter, Rachel F. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:
Friday, November 17, 2006 5:23 PM
To: Ingalls, Katrina
Cc: Rudolph,
Kim
Subject: OMB comments on NSLDS data system
Katrina,
OMB
has the following questions on the NSLDS collection (1845-0035).
Please
respond by COB Monday 11/27.
Thanks!
1. Please explain the improvements
that ED envisions making with
NSLDS-II. Why does ED believe it will
take more than 6 years to
implement NSLDS-II(the previous terms, which
envisioned NSLDS-II were
issued in 10/03 and the supporting memo included
with this submission
states that the changes will not be ready for a minimum
of 3 years from
now - 11/09)?
2. Each of the ICs for this collection list
the number of
respondents and burden for the respondent and state "There is
no
specific instrument that relates specifically to this group
of
respondents since all respondents use the same NSLDS system." This
is
fine, except that we did not receive a copy of the NSLDS system
to
review. Please send us a copy for review.
4. ED has submitted this collection as a
revision. Please describe
the program changes you are proposing from
the currently approved
version of this collection. What are the new
data elements you are
proposing to collect?
There
has been little change over the past three years of data collected in NSLDS, we
continue to collect the same data elements. Due to the Higher Education
Reconciliation Act (HERA), NSLDS has added a new loan type, two new Grant Types
and plans to add additional Teacher Loan Forgiveness data. However, this
has had minimal impact to the suppliers of data. As mentioned in
number 1 and 3 above, when planning the Enterprise Information System, we do
plan on changing the data collected that could have a much larger impact. But
this change will not take place for several more years.
5. In term of
burden, how much more burden (in terms of hours/
minutes) do the new data
elements impose on respondents? How does that
compare overall to the
increase of 5,024 annual responses? That is, we
would like an
explanation for ED's request for a burden reduction
-44,872 hours, while the
number of responses and data elements are
increasing.
Although the respondents have increased over time, we have seen a huge increase in the number of respondents using servicers to compile and send data. Also, the respondents have moved away from creating and mailing tapes to sending the data electronically. By using servicers, the time spent to create and send data by respondents has been transferred to a third party that have more advanced technical capabilities. Further, the creation of tapes to send data is a long process that has been replaced with electronic means.
Rachel F. Potter
Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and
Budget
Tel:
(202) 395-5887
Fax: (202) 395-6974
<mailto:[email protected]>
| File Type | text/html |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 0000-00-00 |