Appendix A: Federal Register Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 22, 2008 / Notices
budget and award amount will be
negotiated between NIC and the
successful applicant. Funds may only be
used for the activities that are linked to
the desired outcome of the project.
Following award of the cooperative
agreement, NIC will work with the
awardee to refine the identification of
additional topics, plus the review and
final acceptance of each deliverable. A
specific funding amount is not
disclosed. Both the cost and the
development strategy are to be
completed. Selection will be based on a
determination of the best value for the
government to achieve the goals of the
award.
This project will be a collaborative
venture with the NIC Community
Corrections Division.
Eligibility of Applicants: An eligible
applicant is any public or private
agency, educational institution,
organization, individual or team with
expertise in the described areas.
Review Considerations: Applications
received under this announcement will
be subjected to a 3-to-5 person NIC Peer
Review Process.
Number of Awards: One.
NIC Application Number: 08C79.
This number should appear as a
reference line in the cover letter, in box
4a of Standard Form 424, and outside of
the envelope in which the application is
sent.
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Number: 16.601.
Executive Order 12372: This project is
not subject to the provisions of
Executive Order 12372.
Thomas J. Beauclair,
Deputy Director. National Institute of
Corrections.
[FR Doc. E8–16684 Filed 7–21–08: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-36-P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Proposed Information Collection
Request for the Extension of the
Individual Training Account
Experiment; Extension With Changes
of Approved Collection; Comment
Request
AGENCY:

Employment and Training
Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of
Labor, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, conducts a preclearance
consultation program to provide the

42597

general public and federal agencies with guiding customer choice. The three
an opportunity to comment on proposed approaches included a highly structured
approach (in which customers were
and/or continuing collections of
steered to the highest-return training
information in accordance with the
options), a moderately guided approach,
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
and a true voucher approach (in which
(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This
customers were offered a lump sum and
program helps to ensure that requested
allowed to choose any state-approved
data can be provided in the desired
training). The three approaches were
format, reporting burden (time and
tested through an experiment that
financial resources) is minimized,
randomly assigned new customers to
collection instruments are clearly
understood, and the impact of collection one of the three ITA approaches. The
advantages of randomly assigning
requirements on respondents can be
customers are increased precision and
properly assessed. Currently, the
accuracy in the impact estimates. ETA
Employment and Training
selected six grantees through a
Administration is soliciting comments
competitive process to participate in the
for a proposed extension with revisions
evaluation. The experiment was
to an approved information collection
(OMB 1205—0441, expires November 30, conducted in Chicago, Illinois;
Charlotte, North Carolina; Atlanta,
2009) to evaluate long-term impacts of
Georgia; Phoenix, Arizona; Bridgeport,
participants in the Individual Training
Connecticut; and Jacksonville, Florida.
Account Experiment.
Intake began in 2001.
A copy of the proposed information
Findings from the initial evaluation of
collection request (ICR) can be obtained
the ITA Experiment suggested that a
by contacting the office listed below in
the addresses section of this notice or by longer-term follow-up was necessary in
order to reach more definitive
accessing: http://www.doleta.gov/
conclusions regarding the impacts and
OMBCN/OMBCon trol Num ber. c fin .
cost-effectiveness of the ITA
DATES: Written comments must be
approaches. For most ITA study
submitted to the office listed in the
participants, the initial data collection
ADDRESSES section below on or before
permitted examination of employment
September 22, 2008.
outcomes for 18 months following
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
random assignment. At that time, a
to Janet Javar, Room N—5641,
substantial number of ITA participants
Employment and Training
were still in training, so that the
Administration. 200 Constitution
ultimate effects of the ITA approaches
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
had not yet been completely realized.
Telephone number: 202—693—3677 (this
This extension of the evaluation
is not a toll-free number). Fax: 202—693— examines the longer-term outcomes of
2766. E-mail: [email protected].
ITA study participants, with a second
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
follow-up survey administered between
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of
four and seven years after random
1998 brought about substantial changes
assignment and with longer-term
in the way training and other
employment and earnings data,
employment services are provided. \VIA including updated unemployment
required workforce investment areas to
insurance (UI) wage records.
establish Individual Training Accounts
This request for a second participant
(ITAs), which provide vouchers or other follow-up survey includes only minor
related funding methods that customers
modifications to the first follow-up
can use to pay for training. ITAs are
survey (OMB 1205—0441). It collects the
intended to empower customers to
same critical information that can only
choose the training services they need
be collected using survey data on the
and raise the accountability of states,
employment, training, and earnings
local areas, and service providers for
experiences of the ITA study
participants. The second follow-up
meeting these needs.
The ITA Experiment was conducted
survey and additional UI data collection
between June 1999 and September 2006. are needed to examine a more extensive
It was designed to test different
employment history for each ITA study
approaches for managing customer
participant and update the experimental
choice in the administration of ITAs.
estimates of net impacts and return-onStates and local offices have a great deal investment analyses for the three ITA
of flexibility in deciding how much
approaches.
guidance to provide to customers in
To determine the relative long-term
choosing WIA-funded training. The
i mpacts of different ITA approaches on
experiment tested three approaches that training experiences and on labor
differed widely in both the resources
market outcomes, updated stateadministrative data and second followmade available to customers and the
up survey data will be used. These data
involvement of local counselors in

42598

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 22, 2008 / Notices

will make it possible to compare the
outcomes of the three ITA approaches
and evaluate their cost-effectiveness at
three to five years after random
assignment. These comparisons will be
based on the experiences and outcomes
of ITA customers, such as participation
in education and training, employment
and earnings, and participation in
government support programs. These
comparisons will yield estimates of the
relative impacts of different ITA
approaches on key outcomes in the
long-term.
To compare the three ITA approaches,
administrative and survey data to
compute summary statistics, such as
means, separately for each ITA
approach will be used. For example, the
percentage of ITA customers served by
each approach that received trainingrelated services will be computed and
compared to how much training they
received. This percentage will be
compared across approaches to
determine whether the different
approaches vary in the amount and type
of training that customers completed.
The evaluation findings can provide
local workforce investment boards with
guidance on possible modifications to
their ITA programs. The goal of the
experiment is to determine the relative
long-term impacts and cost-effectiveness
of different approaches to administering
ITAs. The updated data collected from
states and the second participant followCite/Reference

up survey will provide critical
information to make those assessments.
The planned data collection efforts are
therefore essential to evaluating the
different ITA approaches tested in the
experiment.
II. Review Focus
Data will be collected from study
participants only once. The survey will
provide the only source of long-term
data for ITA customers at the six
grantees on the following outcomes:
• Participation in education and
training programs;
• Job search behavior after random
assignment;
• Characteristics of post-training jobs;
and
• Participation in government
programs, including UI.
Therefore, if this second follow-up
survey were not conducted, the
evaluation would be unable to assess
the impacts of different ITA approaches
on these outcomes in the long-term.
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
Total
respondents

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: Extension of a
currently approved collection with
revisions.
Agency: Employment and Training
Administration.
Title: Extension of the Evaluation of
the Individual Training Account
Experiment.
OMB Number: 12 05-0441.
Affected Public: Individuals.
Total Respondents: 3,366.
Frequency: One time.
Total Responses: 3,366.
Average Time per Response: 30
minutes.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,680
hours.
Total Burden Cost: $24,192.
Average time
per response
(minutes)

Frequency

Burden (hours)

ITA Follow-up survey......................................

3,366

One time ........................................................

30

1,680

Totals......................................................

3,366

.........................................................................

........................

1,680

The total burden cost represents 30
minutes to complete the survey
multiplied by the number of completers
(3,366 or 70 percent of the 4,800 sample
targeted for the survey) and by an
estimated average hourly wage of $14.40
per hour.
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.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 16th day of
July 2008.
Thomas M. Dowd,

Administrator, Office of Policy Development
and Research Employment and Training
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–16666 Filed 7–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of petitions for
modification of existing mandatory
safety standards.
AGENCY:

Section 101(c) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and
30 CFR part 44 govern the application,
processing, and disposition of petitions
for modification. This notice is a
summary of petitions for modification
filed by the parties listed below to
modify the application of existing
mandatory safety standards published
in Title 30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
SUMMARY:

DATES: All comments on the petitions
must be received by the Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances
on or before August 21, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments, identified by "docket
number" on the subject line, by any of
the following methods:
1. Electronic mail: [email protected].
2. Facsimile: 1-202-693-9441.
3. Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349,
Arlington, Virginia 22209, Attention:
Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
4. Hand-Delivery or Courier: MSHA,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard,
Room 2349, Arlington, Virginia 22209,
Attention: Patricia W. Silvey, Director,