1205-0522 Supporting Statement_12-10-15

Required Elements for Submission of the Unified or Combined State Plan and Plan Modifications under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

1205-0522

December 2015

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 SUBMISSIONS

“Required Elements for Submission of the Unified or Combined State Plan and Plan Modifications under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act”

A. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

This consolidated information collection would implement sections 102 and 103 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (P.L. 113-128). WIOA requires that, no later than March 3, 2016, each State, at a minimum, submit a Unified State Plan as a condition of receiving funds for core programs subject to the Unified State Plan requirements. In the alternative, States may submit a Combined State Plan as a condition of receiving funds under certain named programs subject to the Combined State Plan provisions. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 3112 and 3113. The Unified or Combined State Plan requirements are designed to improve service integration and ensure that the publicly-funded workforce system provides a range of employment, education, training, and related services and supports to help all jobseekers secure good jobs while providing businesses with the skilled workers they need to compete in the global economy.  To that end, the Unified or Combined State Plan would describe how the State will develop and implement a unified, integrated service delivery system rather than discuss the State’s approach to operating each program individually.

Section 102(a) of WIOA requires each State, at a minimum, to submit a Unified State Plan that fosters strategic alignment of the core programs, which include the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs (title I); Adult Education and Family Literacy Act program (title II); the Wagner-Peyser program (title III); and the Vocational Rehabilitation program (title IV). In the alternative, section 103 of WIOA permits a State to submit a Combined State Plan including the aforementioned core programs plus one or more of the optional Federal programs listed in section 103(b). States choosing to submit a Combined State Plan, are required to incorporate all of the common planning elements required in the Unified State Plan, additional elements describing how the State will coordinate the optional programs with the core programs (WIOA sec. 103(b)(3)), and elements required by the optional program(s) that are included in the Combined State Plan.

The consolidated information collection for the Unified or Combined State Plan and Plan Modifications will replace existing planning information collections for the core programs under various statutes, including the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) (P.L. 105-220), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. For States that choose to submit a Combined State Plan, the existing information collections for the program-specific State plans for the optional programs will continue to exist under their current control numbers for those programs that have existing state planning requirements. Once approved, a State’s Combined State Plan meets the information collection requirements for the program-specific State plans for all optional programs that a State includes. If a Combined State Plan is approved, the State is not required to submit any other State plan to receive federal funding for any optional program covered under that Combined State Plan (WIOA sec. 103(b)(2)). If a State plan for an optional program changes from the one approved under the Combined State Plan, the State may have to submit additional plans to the appropriate Department—such additional plans will be counted under the optional programs’ existing information collection requirements.

Note that some of the optional programs that a State may include in the Combined State Plan currently fulfill their program-specific State planning requirements through a broader information collection administered by the program’s appropriate Department. For example, section 103(b)(2) of WIOA specifically allows the employment and training activities carried out under the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and employment and training activities under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to be included in a WIOA Combined State Plan. However, for example, the existing CSBG information collection includes planning elements for the employment and training activities along with planning elements for other activities under CSBG. Therefore, if States choose to include programs such as these in the Combined State Plan, only the portion of the existing planning requirements that address the employment and training activities are included in the Combined State Plan (WIOA sec. 103), and, States are still required to separately submit all other required elements of a complete CSBG State Plan directly to the Federal agency that administers the program.

The Department of Labor is hosting this information collection request under the “common form” clearance option; the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development (all agencies to be jointly referred to as the “Departments”) actively participated in the development of this instrument and are expected to be signatories to the “Required Elements for Submission of the Unified or Combined State Plan and Plan Modifications under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act” instrument, which details the requirements for State plans submitted under WIOA.

As mentioned above, this instrument is intended to cover the state planning information collection requirements in sections 102 and 103 of WIOA. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing regulations that would implement those sections was published on April 16, 2015, at 80 Fed. Reg. 20573. The comment period closed on June 15, 2015. The proposed regulations that correspond to these information collection requirements are: 20 CFR Part 676 (WIOA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs and Wagner-Peyser Act programs); 34 CFR Part 361, Subpart D (State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program); and 34 CFR Part 463, Subpart H (Adult Education and Family Literacy Act programs).

Sec. 102(c)(1)(A) of WIOA states that States must submit their first Unified Plan to the Secretary of Labor not later than 120 days prior to the commencement of the second full program year after the date of enactment of WIOA, which was July 22, 2014. Therefore, the second full program year commences on July 1, 2016, and the Unified or Combined State plans must be submitted no later than March 3, 2016. Approval of this instrument is required as soon as possible so that the States can begin working to develop their plans, a process that requires months of coordination among State agencies and other stakeholders.

If this instrument receives OMB approval, it may be finalized before the proposed regulations are finalized in Spring 2016. If this occurs, the Departments will resubmit this instrument to OMB for its approval when the Final Rule is published, as required by 5 CFR 1320.11(h). However, the Departments have reviewed and analyzed comments received on the NPRM that were relevant to this instrument together with comments we received in response to the Federal Register Notice (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-08-06/pdf/2015-19286.pdf) for this instrument as we finalized it. This was intended to enable the Departments to finalize this instrument before the proposed regulations, and to minimize the need to make substantive changes to it when the Final Rule is published.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

In order for a State to receive funding for the core programs, the State must submit a Unified or Combined State Plan every four years and a State plan modification at least every two years. A State must submit its Unified State Plan to the Secretary of Labor, who, in turn, shares the Unified State Plan with the Secretary of Education (WIOA sec. 102(c)(1)). Unified State Plans are subject to the approval of both the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education, after approval by the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration of the Vocational Rehabilitation services portion of the plan (WIOA sec. 102(c)(2)). In approving the Unified State Plan, the Secretaries of Labor and Education must determine whether the plan is consistent with Unified State Plan requirements, as well as relevant requirements for each of the core programs (WIOA sec. 102(c)(2)(B)).

When a State’s Combined State Plan is approved, it will be considered as having met the information collection requirements for the program-specific State plans for all optional programs that a State includes. The State is not required to submit any other State plan to receive federal funding for any optional program that it included in the Combined State Plan (WIOA sec. 103(b)(2)). If a State plan for an optional program changes from the one approved under the Combined State Plan, the state may have to submit additional plans to the appropriate Department—such additional plans will be counted under the optional programs’ existing information collection requirements. As stated above, some of the optional programs that a State may include in the Combined State Plan fulfill their program-specific planning requirements through a broader information collection administered by the program’s appropriate Department. One example is the CSBG program administered by HHS, where WIOA section 103(b)(2) allows States to include the planning elements for employment and training activities carried out under the CSBG program Act in the Combined State Plan but does not include the planning requirements for the other activities of the CSBG program. If States choose to include programs such as these in the Combined State Plan, only the portion of the existing planning requirements that address the employment and training activities are included in the Combined State Plan (WIOA sec. 103), and, States are still required to separately follow any other program specific State plan requirements.

Portions of the Combined State Plan covering a program or activity, excluding those related to the core programs, are subject to approval by the head of the Federal agency that administers such program (WIOA sec. 103(d)(2)). The portions of the Combined State Plan related to the core programs are subject to the same approval requirements applicable to the Unified State Plan.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

States will be required to submit a Unified or Combined State Plan through an online submission system developed by the Department of Education’s Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). This system has been in use for several years by RSA programs and is being adapted for the Unified or Combined State Plan. The system features a web-based portal that allows users to enter data and text in response to the Unified or Combined State Plan elements, is 508 compliant, and allows for public posting of approved plans. Grantees will access this portal through a landing page on DOL’s website, although the portal will be temporarily maintained on RSA’s servers. The system is password protected, and multiple users within a State will be given access to the system. The Departments will provide technical assistance on using the system once it is available. The Department believes that online submission will reduce burden on the States and facilitate the review and approval process at the Federal level. The system is expected to reduce the Federal burden of joint review by providing a common platform. While this system is not yet available since its development is in progress, the Department is providing a few sample screen shots to show how the portal will generally appear to respondents. See Appendix 1. As substantive requirements are being cleared at this time via paper instrument, the Departments anticipate clearing the portal as a non-material change, a process that does not require public engagement for certain limited minor changes to an ICR.   The Department will, at OMB’s request, submit a non-material change to incorporate screenshots of the entire system into this collection once the system is complete.

If the system is unavailable when States are ready to submit a Unified or Combined State Plan, then States can temporarily submit via email ([email protected]) a 508-compliant Word or PDF document.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2.

Currently, States submit program-specific State plans. The proposed consolidated information collection, known as the “Required Elements for Submission of the Unified or Combined State Plan and Plan Modifications under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act,” is the only data collection instrument for States to submit either a Unified or Combined State Plan under WIOA for the core programs. This consolidated information collection will replace program-specific State plan collections for each of the core programs. Providing a Combined State Plan response will count as a response for any existing program-specific State plan information collection requirements for any optional program or program activities that a State includes in its Combined State Plan. Unified and Combined State Plans will help to improve program effectiveness by promoting an overall collaborative approach between the various State and Federal agencies that provide the services under the core and combined plan partner programs, and potentially will lead to increased efficiencies as service duplication will be minimized.

This instrument will replace and subsume the residual burden reported in the instruments that currently contain Unified State Plan requirements. The burden required for fulfilling the program-specific State Plan requirements for the optional programs that may be included in the Combined State Plan will continue to be separately accounted for under the optional programs’ existing, approved Information Collections, except for the burden for each Department under this instrument related to use of the Combined State Plan. See item 12 for a description of how burden will be apportioned. Corresponding non-substantive change requests will be cleared under each separate instrument covering a program or program activities included in a Combined State Plan; this will ensure that agencies accurately account for overall burden.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

The proposed information collection affects only States, not small businesses or entities.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

Sections 102 and 103 of WIOA require that the State submit a Unified or Combined State Plan every four years and a plan modification at least every two years. A State will not receive funding for core programs if it fails to submit an acceptable Unified or Combined State Plan (WIOA sec. 102(a)). If this information collection is not allowed, the Departments of Labor and Education will have no authority to provide funding to states authorized by WIOA, and therefore, the statute will fail to be implemented as intended.

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:

• requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

• requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

• requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

• requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;

• in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;

• requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;

• that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or

• requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secret, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

There are no special circumstances that require the collection of information to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with 5 CFR 1320.5.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and record keeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years -- even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

The Departments have engaged the public through an NPRM published on April 16, 2015 (80 FR 20573) and, in accordance with the PRA, published a 60-day Federal Register Notice (FRN) on August 6, 2015, page 47003. The FRN is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-08-06/pdf/2015-19286.pdf.

In addition, the Department sought early stakeholder engagement through a series of listening sessions. Those sessions resulted in better understanding by the Department of the States’ needs related to planning and potential areas of clarification. In particular, States requested that instructions and the instrument be a joint effort of affected Federal programs, modeling the cooperative and collaborative relationship that WIOA expects in the Unified and Combined State Plan development and implementation. The proposed instrument has been developed to meet that need, and included the involvement of all WIOA core programs and the optional Combined State Plan programs.

The following chart contains the Department’s responses to the public comments received on the State Plan Information Collection Request and Supporting Statement during the 60-day comment period that closed on October 5, 2015. Full comments are available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=ETA-2015-0006;fp=true;ns=true. All responses reflect the agreement of DOL, ED, HHS, USDA, and HUD.

Responses to Public Comments

Comments are ordered and divided by sections that correspond to the organization of the instrument

Common Planning Elements (Strategic Planning Elements)

Topic & Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
(Section II), Economic, Workforce, and Workforce Development Activities (Section II(a))
Comment received through the NPRM	State plans should require labor market analysis.		No change to the collection instrument is needed in response to this comment. While we concur with the comment, the instrument already requires labor market analysis. See II(a).
Section II(a)(1)(A) Economic Analysis
Topic: “In-Demand Recognition” Commenter: Commercial Vehicle Training Association	Pg. 6, II(a)(1)(A) A trade association expressed concern that the trucking industry may struggle to secure “in-demand” recognition in many States unless we further clarify a State’s obligations under section II of the Draft Unified and Combined State Plan Requirements document. The commenter proposed specific clarifications to the language of this section.	Suggested clarifications to Section II(a)(1)(A): 1. When conducting Economic analyses in order to determine existing and emerging demand industries, states must use data that reflects all jobs available to residents of the state or region, 2. If a state elects to use data that is inconsistent with BLS findings (regarding which industries are “in-demand” or “high growth”) that state must make that data public and explain why its findings differ from BLS projections, if applicable.	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We encourage states to use a variety of accurate, reliable, and timely labor market information on which to base analyses in the State Plan. However, we will not require states to use a particular data set or justify the use of certain data sets and prefer to provide states discretion to choose data sources.
Topic: Credentials and Licenses Commenters: National Skills Coalition, New York City Mayor’s Office, Anonymous Commenter	Pg. 6, II(a)(1)(A)(iii) Several commenters provided input on section II(a)(1)(A)(iii), which proposes that States include an assessment of employment needs of employers in certain industries and sectors, including a description of the knowledge, skills, and abilities required, including credentials and licenses: An advocacy organization, local office of workforce development, and anonymous commenter supported expanding the required description of employer needs to include specific information relating to credentials and licenses, but recommended replacing “credentials and licenses” with “recognized postsecondary credentials.”	The advocacy organization noted that the term “recognized postsecondary credentials” is a defined term under section 3(52) of WIOA and is inclusive of industry- and State-recognized certificates, certifications, and licenses. The local office of workforce development supported the replacement of terms, but suggested also including the term “literacy attainment,” which is defined in section 203(13) of WIOA, so the requirement would read: “knowledge, skills, and abilities required, including literacy attainment and recognized post-secondary credentials”	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to these comments because we have determined that it is appropriate to keep this term broad rather than just narrow it to postsecondary credentials. The current term "credentials and licenses" includes postsecondary credentials, but is broader. The instrument as written is inclusive of recognized post-secondary credentials and employer expectations on literacy levels.
Topic: Employers’ employment needs, Individuals with disabilities Commenter: National Disability Institute	Pg. 6, Section II(a)(1)(A)(iii) An advocacy organization stated that, when assessing the needs of employers, it would be beneficial to collect information on whether or not these various employers are subject to section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act.	Rationale: If a fair number of employers are subject to section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, this could indicate a need for increasing the hiring of individuals with disabilities. This also offers an opportunity to assist employers in fulfilling their obligation under section 503.	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We disagree that the State Plan is the appropriate vehicle for collecting information on whether or not employers are subject to section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Section II(a)(1)(B) Workforce Analysis
Topic: Labor Force Participation Rates for Individuals with Disabilities Commenters: Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, National Disability Institute	Pg. 6 II(a)(1)(B)(i) 1. Two advocacy organizations noted that section II(a)(1)(B) would be an appropriate opportunity to include labor force participation rates for persons with disabilities, including youth and veterans with disabilities. 2. One of these commenters suggested that States collect information concerning the numbers of individuals with disabilities who are working in segregated work environments (“sheltered workshops”) and who are employed under a 14c waiver (receiving sub-minimum wage).	Rationale: Looking only at unemployment data instead of also analyzing labor force participation may exclude people with disabilities who are not actively seeking work from the market analysis going into the state plans. 2. Rationale: A key component of WIOA is to decrease the instances of segregated sub-minimum wage employment and increase opportunities for competitive integrated employment. Documenting these numbers would be consistent with those goals.	1. We concur that understanding labor force participation rates is important. We accept this comment and made a change to the collection instrument in II, (a)(1)(B)(i) to include labor force participation rates. 2. We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. RSA collects the number of individuals who have been referred for VR services and had their case closed after going into extended employed (sheltered workshop or non-competitive, non-integrated setting).  This information is collected through the RSA-911 report. The collection of this information through the State Plans information collection would be duplicative of other collections already issued by RSA.
Topic: English language proficiency; various population groups Commenter: National Council of State Directors of Adult Education; NPRM commenters	Pg. 6 A professional association proposed that knowledge and familiarity with English be included in the analysis of the current workforce and that each Plan include a strategy for addressing the adult education and family literacy needs of the incumbent workforce. Also, we received NPRM comments that state plans should include employment to prevent homeless, strategies to address older workers, low-level learners, hard reach populations, and individuals with barriers.		No change to instrument. We agree that such analysis and strategies should be included and expect states to provide a strategy for addressing the needs of individuals with limited English proficiency and other groups such as older worker, individuals with barriers, etc. We believe the instrument requires this as written. (see II(a)(1)(B), including footnote 4.
Topic: Labor Market Trends Commenter: The National Disability Institute	p. 6 , II(a)(1)(B)(ii), Labor Market Trends An advocacy organization cited an increase in State and Federal policies aimed at increasing employment for individuals with disabilities. The commenter strongly encouraged the States to examine whether or not their particular State is under any of these policies, which would help determine future labor market trends and give further direction on increasing employment for individuals with disabilities.	N/A	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We decline to require an examination of state policies as a way to understand their possible impact on employment for individuals with disabilities. While this information would be useful, it goes beyond what the state should be required to do for purposes of the state plan and may be more appropriate for a formal study.
Topic: Education and Skill Levels of the Workforce, Financial Literacy Commenter: National Disability Institute	p. 6, section II(a)(1)(B)(iii), Education and Skill Levels of the Workforce. An advocacy organization urged us to explicitly include financial literacy as a component of education. Specifically, the commenter said there should be an assessment of financial literacy skills as part of the assessment of education and skills level.	Rationale: Financial literacy plays a significant role in a person’s overall ability to gain and maintain employment in a responsible way. Understanding the level at which job seekers are familiar with basic financial literacy should be a part of individual plans for employment with the establishment of specific financial literacy goals to improve knowledge and skills that will benefit job seekers and post-employment. The core programs of the American Job Centers should make available financial literacy education as an essential support for job seekers (including job seekers with disabilities).	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We agree that financial literacy plays a significant role in a person’s overall success. The instrument as written permits states to identify what skills gaps exist in their state, including a lack of financial literacy. We encourage states to look at financial literacy as a possible need of their population, but we are not itemizing in the collection instrument every kind of skill that could be included in an assessment of education and skills level.
Topic: Apparent Skills Gaps Commenters: The National Immigration Forum, The National Disability Institute, National Skills Coalition, New York City Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development.	Pg. 6, (II)(a)(1)(B)(iv), which requires States to include a description of “apparent skill gaps.” Several commenters asked us to clarify what is meant by “skill gaps.” An advocacy organization generally supported the presumed intent of this provision, but expressed concern that the current language provides limited guidance to States in defining or analyzing skill gaps, which will likely result in confusion for State planners. A local office of workforce development supported this suggested language.	A few advocacy organizations said we should provide States with examples of calculating “skill gaps.” One of these commenters urged us to include “a lack of financial literacy” as a legitimate “skill gap.” An anonymous commenter requested a definition for “apparent skill gaps,” An anonymous commenter proposed a definition of “apparent skill gaps” that would be measured by “the potential gaps between business demand for specific occupational skills and credentials as compared to current and projected supply. The commenter recommended replacing the current language with the following: “(iv) Describe current and projected gaps between employer skill needs identified in section (II)(a)(1)(A)(iii), and the current and projected education and skills of the workforce as identified in section (II)(a)(1)(B)(iii).”	We decline to change the language for this plan element in the collection instrument in response to this comment. Determining "current gaps," "projected gaps," and "projected education and skills of the workforce" is an inexact science and the state may use various approaches to assess the differences between skills and competencies needed by employers and how well the state’s workforce may be able to supply those skills. It is up to the state to identify what skills gaps or mismatches are in the state. A lack of financial literacy could be included as one of those skills gaps. We encourage states to look at this as a possible need of their population, but we will not address this in the collection instrument. We appreciate the request for examples of how to calculate “skills gaps,” and will take this request into consideration for guidance and technical assistance.

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Section II(a)(2) Workforce Development, Education, and Training Activities Analysis
Topic: The State’s Workforce Development Activities, Faith and Community-based Organizations Commenter: The National Immigration Forum	p. 7, Section II(a)(2) An advocacy organization said innovative partnerships with entities such as faith- and community-based organizations should be included in the analysis of the State’s workforce development, education, and training activities.	Proposed New Language: The Forum recommends that Section II(a)(2)(A) be updated as follows (bold, underlined is new language): The State’s Workforce Development Activities. Provide an analysis of the State’s workforce development activities, including education and training activities of the core programs, Combined State Plan partner programs included in this plan, mandatory and optional one-stop delivery system partners, and examples of innovative partnerships with other entities such as human services, faith- and community-based organizations, and educational institutions.	We accept this comment and made a change to the collection instrument. While we believe that the requirement as originally written allows states to include such organizations as partners and describe those in their plan, we have added a footnote to clarify that the phrase “workforce development activities” could include a wide variety of programs, including human services, faith- and community-based organizations, and educational institutions.
Topic: Physical and Programmatic Accessibility Commenter: National Disability Institute	p. 7, Section II(a)(2) An advocacy organization asserted that the requirements should include reporting on (not only an assessment of) activities offered and to what extent those activities are both physically and programmatically accessible to job seekers with disabilities.	In light of the new requirement that workforce development activities must be physically and programmatically accessible, we would urge the requirements to include reporting on, not only an assessment of activities offered, but to what extent those activities are both physically and programmatically accessible to job seekers with disabilities.	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment because it is more appropriate to identify the extent to which these activities are accessible during monitoring than through the State plan. Section V. 7 and 10 require states to comply with physical and programmatic accessibility required by WIOA sec 188 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
State Strategic Vision and Goals (Section II(b))
Topic: State Strategic Vision and Goals Commenter: New York City Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development	Pg. 7,II(b) A local office of workforce development said the State’s strategic goal should be a guiding rather than prescriptive document, providing overall direction and supporting Local Boards in developing strategies best suited to their local economies. The commenter proposed text to emphasize the collaborative role of State and Local Boards.	Proposed Text Addition: Commenter recommended adding the text below to emphasize the collaborative role of state and local boards--“…in order to support economic growth and economic self-sufficiency. States should keep their vision and goals as broad as possible in order to ensure that local boards have sufficient flexibility to devise strategies that will take into the account the needs of the local workforce and local demand from employers.”	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. It is within the Governor’s discretion to decide how broad the vision should be for the State; however, we do expect engagement of local boards in the development of the State Plan.

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
State Strategy (Section II(c))
Topic: Sector Strategies Commenters: New York City Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development, National Skills Coalition, State Adult Education	Pg. 8, II(c)(1) Several commenters took issue with the use of the term “sector strategies” in section (II)(c)(1), and suggested that language be refined..	An advocacy organization recommended replacing “sector strategies” with “industry or sector partnerships.” Similarly, an anonymous commenter suggested replacing the term “sector strategies” with “industry or sector partnerships related to sectors and occupations.” A local office of workforce development recommended the following edit: Suggested language addition: “(1) Describe the strategies the State will [need to] implement, including career pathways and meeting the needs of employers, workers and jobseekers, particularly through sector strategies, as required by WIOA section 101(d)(3)(B),(D).”	We accept this comment and made a change to the collection instrument. We agree that the language provided on “sector strategies” should be aligned more closely with the statutory language. We have also added the statutory references to the definitions of “career pathway” and “in-demand industry sector or occupation” for additional clarity about this requirement.
Comments received through the NPRM	Pg. 8 Commenters requested career pathways and sector strategies be addressed in state plans and requested further definition of career pathways. Commenter requested that state plans include descriptions about credentialing and integrating credentialing with sector partnerships.		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. The State Plan instrument already includes requirements for the state to describe both its sector and career pathways strategy in II(c), and so the instrument as written supports the inclusion of credentialing and its role in sector and career pathways strategies.
Topic: State Strategy Commenters: National Skills Coalition, National Council of State Directors of Adult Education	Pg. 8, Section (II)(c)(2) An advocacy organization and a professional association said the language of section (II)(c)(2) is more detailed than the requirements under WIOA section 102(b)(1)(E), which the commenters said only references the alignment between core programs and “other resources available to the State.”	These commenters supported the use of more specific language relating to partner programs in this section, but said the language or future guidance should clarify the extent to which States must ensure mandatory and optional one-stop partner programs are engaged in the development and implementation of these State strategies. Suggestion: This language should make it clear to states that all core programs need to be involved in the crafting of the Unified State Plan.	We accept this comment and made a change to the collection instrument. We concur that all core programs must be involved in crafting the state plan. The section IV requirement has been updated to require a description of how programs coordinated to develop state plan.
Topic: State Strategy Commenter: NYC Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development	Pg. 8, II(c)(2) State Strategy A local office of workforce development said we should clarify the intended “gaps” mentioned in the final sentence of section (II)(c)(2). Specifically, the commenter recommended explicitly calling out for inclusion any gaps indicated in both the workforce analysis [II(a)(1)(B)(iv)] and workforce development, education, and training activities analysis [II(a)(2)].	Proposed language: “…strategies…in regard to gaps identified in sections II(a)(1)(B)(iv) and II(a)(2) of the state plan.”	We partially accept the comment and made a change to the collection instrument. We concur with the recommendation to add a reference to II(a)(2) to clarify what analysis should be taken into account for this requirement. We decline to add a reference to II(a)(1)(B)(iv) since the requirement is specifically regarding the strengthening of workforce development activities. Edited as follows: "in regard to weaknesses identified in section II(a)(2)" which more closely aligns with the previous II(a)(2) requirement than the previous language on “gaps”.

Operational Planning Elements (Section III)

State Strategy Implementation (Section III(a))

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
State Strategy Implementation (Section III(a))
Topic: Coordination, Alignment and Provision of Services to Individuals, Examples of coordination of other entities Commenters: The National Immigration Forum	Pg. 7, II(a)(2)(A) and Section Pg. 9, III(a)(2)(C) An advocacy organization suggested that we include innovative partnerships with entities such as faith and community-based organizations in the analysis of the state’s workforce development, education, and training activities. The organization also said States should include examples of coordination and partnerships with other entities, such as faith- and community-based organizations and higher education, in their description of how its lead entities will coordinate activities and resources to provide services to individuals.	Proposed New Language: The Forum recommends that Section II(a)(2)(A) be updated as follows (bold, underlined is new language): The State’s Workforce Development Activities. Provide an analysis of the State’s workforce development activities, including education and training activities of the core programs, Combined State Plan partner programs included in this plan, mandatory and optional one-stop delivery system partners, and examples of innovative partnerships with other entities such as human services, faith- and community-based organizations, and educational institutions. Commenter recommended that similar language on faith and community based organizations be included in Section III(a)(2)(C), which discusses Coordination, Alignment, and Provision of Services to Individuals.	We accept the comment and made a change to the collection instrument on page 7 with a footnote, which is the first occurrence. The collection instrument as originally written allows states to include such organizations as partners and describe those in their plan. However, we have added a footnote to clarify.
Comment received through the NPRM	State strategy should unify wrap around services across programs		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. The instrument, III(a)(2)(C), already requires coordination of supportive services (wrap-around services) among programs.
Topic: Coordination, Alignment, and Provision of Services to Employers Commenter: National Skills Coalition	Pg. 9, III(a)(2)(D) An advocacy organization supported the inclusion of this element, which it said is not included in WIOA section 102(b)(2)(B), but recommended that that this element be amended to include a description of how core programs and other partners will be aligned to support industry or sector partnerships.	Recommendations: 1) Amend the element to include a description of how core programs and other partners will be aligned to support industry or sector partnerships. The language should clarify that states can and should be coordinating and aligning services across programs in a manner that achieves the goals of such partnerships. 2) The language of this element could be strengthened to clarify that the description required is not limited to direct employer services, but should also include any other programs and activities that will support service delivery to employers.	Response to Recommendation 1: We accept the comment and made a change to the collection instrument. We concur with this suggestion to reinforce the importance of industry and sector partnerships. We have amended the requirement. Response to Recommendation 2: We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. The language is sufficient as originally written to include both direct and indirect services to employers.
Topic: Coordination, Alignment, and Provision of Services to Employers Commenter: New York City Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development	Pg. 9, III(a)(2)(D) A local office of workforce development supported the intent of this section but was unclear as to the source of the requirement that the State outline additional strategies for coordinating “services to employers.”	The commenter said a better approach would be for the State Board to provide a vision of how business services should be coordinated in local areas and the Local Board would be responsible for developing a more detailed plan for how to do so.	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We believe that both the state and local governments are partners in developing strategies for serving employers. Using the authority WIOA grants to the Secretaries to add additional operational planning elements as appropriate, we have chosen to include a requirement around serving employers since they are a critical customer. .
Topic: Partner Engagement with Educational Institutions, Education and training providers Commenters: National Skills Coalition, National Council of State Directors of Adult Education, New York City Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development	Pg. 9, III(a)(2)(E) An advocacy organization and a professional association supported extending this requirement to cover a broader range of providers than community colleges and area career and technical education (CTE) schools, but noted that there is no formal definition of the term “education and training providers” under WIOA.	These commenters and a local office of workforce development said we should explicitly state that this requirement is intended to cover all institutions that are, or could be, on a State’s eligible training provider (ETP) list, especially adult education programs	We accept the comment and, we have revised the instrument to include separate requirements for engagement with community colleges and career and technical education schools as required by the statute and we have included a separate element for other training providers, including ETPs and adult education providers because such coordination is necessary to have a successful strategy for provision of services.
Topic: Partner Engagement with Educational Institutions, Education and training providers, Community Rehabilitation Organizations (CRO) Commenters: National Disability Institute	Pg. 9, III(a)(2)(E) An advocacy organization requested that the listed examples include community rehabilitation organizations (CROs). The commenter noted that frequently individuals with disabilities enter into CROs after completing high school, and these CROs are tasked with teaching individuals with disabilities job skills with the expectation of acquiring employment in the community.		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. States may address CROs in their plan however we decline to specify these organizations since they are not solely education/training entities. However, the state may include them in its discussion in item III(a)(2)(F).

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
State Operating Systems and Policies III(b))
Topic:  State Operating Systems and Policies Commenter: Rochester Works, Inc., Lee Koslow	Pg. 10, III(b) Issue:  WIOA Section 121(h) requires the local board and chief elected officials to negotiate a cost sharing agreement with one-stop partners, many of whom are state agencies	Suggestion:  Add a subsection to Section III(b) of the state plan contents that includes a description of proposed benchmarks for the negotiated amounts and/or percentages that each one-stop partner that is a unit of state government will contribute to the local one-stop system costs.                          Rationale:  The inclusion of this element in the state plan will provide for better coordination and more transparency in the negotiation of shared costs.	We have made a change to the collection instrument in response to the comment. We concur that the inclusion of information on one-stop partner cost sharing arrangements in the state plan will provide for better coordination and more transparency in the negotiation of shared costs. However, we feel for the PY 2016 State Plan that states will not be in a position to provide their guidelines. Instead, we have added a requirement at III(b)(2) to require information about the state’s process for developing guidelines and benchmarks, and requiring the guidelines in PY 2018.
Topic: Assessment of One-Stop Program Partner Programs Commenter: New York City Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development	Pg. 10, III(b)(4)(A),(B) A local office of workforce development said we should emphasize the role of local and regional planning in establishing appropriate assessment standards. The commenter provided proposed language to be included in in section III(b)(4) to address this issue.	Proposed language would be included under the III(b)(4) heading to read: “Assessment of Programs and One-Stop Program Partners” Describe how the core programs will be assessed…This State assessment must include the quality, effectiveness, and improvement of programs broken down by local area or provider. State assessment strategies should be responsive to and coordinate with local and regional planning goals.”	We accept the comment with minor modifications and made a change to the collection instrument. We concur with the suggestion that regional and local goals be considered when developing assessments in order to ensure assessments accurately reflect the progress throughout the state. We have amended the requirement that "such state assessments should take into account local and regional planning goals." Also we added “broken down by state and local area”.
Topic: Assessment of Programs and One-Stop Program Partners Commenter: Workforce Development Agency State of Michigan	Pg. 10, III(b)(4) A State workforce development agency agreed with us that the assessment of core programs and one-stop partner programs based on accountability measures is important, but asserted that not all core programs currently collect the same performance information.	The commenter requested clarification on what constitutes previous assessment results for the preceding 2 years, noting that there may not be a formal assessment available in States that were previously granted waivers of the requirement to conduct evaluations under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The commenter also requested clarification on what constitutes elements required to be included in the assessments for the other core programs.	We accept the comment and made a change to the collection instrument. We agree that the previous two-year period referenced in section 116 and on page 10 of the instrument should be implemented for the first time at the two-year period of the plan modification cycle because assessments of WIOA programs will not be available before that time. We have added clarifying language.
Comment received through the NPRM	Pg. 10, III(b) Request to require states to provide a description of a clearly-defined management reporting structure for State merit staff		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We do not require a reporting structure for merit staff because it imposes an unnecessary burden on states. However, states may elect to develop such a policy and include in in its state plan. See III(b)(1)(A) or III(b)(2).
Topic: Assessment of One-Stop Program Partner Programs, Services for Individuals with Disabilities, Physical and Programmatic Accessibility Commenter: National Disability Institute	Pg. 10, Section III(b)(4)(B) An advocacy organization urged us to require that assessments document how each program will ensure not only physical accessibility but programmatic accessibility, including specific examples of how WIOA section 188 regulations are being met.		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We agree that compliance with physical and programmatic accessibility requirements is critical and have required states to provide how this will be achieved in III(b)(8) and through the common assurances (V), #7 and #10. Federal and State monitoring is the most appropriate approach to ensuring such compliance.
Topic: Program Data, Data Alignment and Integration Commenters: National Council of State Directors of Adult Education	Pp. 11-12, Section III(b)(6)A) Commenter supports efforts to improve coordination across programs and recognizes that integrated data systems are an important step in achieving this goal. However, commenter is concerned that achieving this goal will be expensive and challenging for states in light of state budget crises and declining federal resources.	Commenter proposes that we add language that makes it clear that states are not required to make such efforts.	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We decline the suggestion to no longer make it mandatory for states to make efforts to integrate date systems. Under WIOA 101(d)(8) the State Board is required to assist the governor with “the development of strategies for aligning technology and data systems across one-stop partner programs to enhance service delivery and improve efficiencies in reporting on performance accountability measures (including the design and implementation of common intake, data collection, case management information, and performance accountability measurement and reporting processes and the incorporation of local input into such design and implementation, to improve coordination of services across one-stop partner programs)” and under WIOA section 102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) the State plan must explain “how the lead state agencies with responsibility for the administration of the core programs will align and integrate available workforce and education data on core programs, unemployment insurance programs, and education through postsecondary education.” Due to these statutory requirements, States must develop a plan for aligning and integrating data systems.
Topic: Program Data, Data Alignment and Integration Commenter: National Skills Coalition	Pp. 11-12, Section III(b)(6)(A) Commenter strongly supports our efforts to strengthen coordination across core and combined State Plan programs, Combined State Plan programs as well as mandatory and optional one-stop partner programs . However, NSC feels that moving to true interoperability and integration of data management systems would likely require substantial outlays of time and money that states may not be able to meet, especially in a time of level or declining federal resources.	Suggestion: 1c) NSC recommends that sections (II)(b)(6)(A)(i) and (ii) be amended to read: (i) Describe the State's plans to make the management information systems of the core programs interoperable and/or leverage state longitudinal data systems (to the extent practicable) to maximize the efficient exchange of common data elements to support assessment, evaluation, and performance management. This may include adoption of the voluntary Common Education Data Standards offered by the U.S. Department of Education. ii) Describe the State's plans to integrate data systems (to the extent practicable) to facilitate streamlined intake and service delivery, and to track participation and co-enrollment across all programs included in this plan.	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. The statute requires the state to have a plan for aligning and integrating data systems. See WIOA sections 101(d)(8) and 102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I), and States must develop a plan for doing so. At this time we are seeking to understand state plans on integration and alignment of data system, and recognize that these efforts will be challenging for many states and will be implemented over the long-term.
Topic: Alignment and Integration of Program Data Commenter: NYC Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development	Pp. 11-12, III(b)(6)(A) – Data Alignment and Integration Comment Category: Request for Change Recommendation: States should establish a reasonable timeline for data alignment and integration.	Rationale: Data alignment and integration will require considerable coordination among state, regional, and local entities, as well as providers. In order not only to establish “progress to date” (III.b.6.A), States should be given the flexibility to establish a “reasonable timeline” for achieving the enumerated goals. Suggested language: Proposed text, to be included in the last sentence of III(b)(6)(A) could read: “The description of the State’s plan for integrating data systems should include the State’s goals for achieving integration, a reasonable timeline for doing so, and any progress to date.”	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. The instrument language as currently written permits states to establish a “reasonable timeline” as part of its plan for achieving data system alignment and integration.
Topic: Data Alignment and Integration Commenter: New York City Mayor’s Office for Workforce Development	Pg. 11-12, III(b)(6)(A)	The commenter also said the Department and State Plans should both report a single score for each of the six performance indicators, but only after 4 years of WIOA implementation.	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. WIOA requires that each state establish levels of performance for each of the indicators of performance for each of the programs, therefore it is not feasible to combine outcomes for all measures.  We proposed one score for the effectiveness of serving employers to emphasize collaboration among the partner programs and to minimize burden on employers; however, each program is to be held accountable for each of the other indicators.
Comment received through the NPRM	Require Veterans POS to be addressed in state plan. POS should be required for service-connected and non-service connected disabilities		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. The change is not necessary because the instrument requires states to describe how they implement Veterans Priority of Service in the state, and under 38 USC 4215 all veterans, including disabled veterans with both service and non-service connected disabilities receive Priority of Service for all employment and training programs funded in whole or in part by the Department of Labor. See III)(b)((7). In addition the instrument tells states that they should explain the referral process for veterans determined to have a significant barrier, including certain disabled veterans, to receive services from the Jobs for Veterans State Grants program.
Topic: Addressing the accessibility of the One-Stop Delivery System Commenters: National Skills Coalition; New York City Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development, National Disability Institute, RochesterWorks, Inc., Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities	Pg. 12, Section III(b)(8) An advocacy organization requested clarification of requirement in light of a parenthetical sentence at the end of the section indicating that this requirement applies to core programs, rather than the one-stop delivery system partners referenced earlier in the requirement. A local office of workforce development recommended that We rename this section as “Addressing Accessibility” and note its applicability to all programs.		We accept the comment and made a change to the collection instrument. We concur with the commenter that the parenthetical could create confusion about the requirements of Section 188 and so it has been removed.  WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(vii) requires that the Unified State Plan contain a description of how one-stop operators and one-stop partners, in addition to core programs, will comply with section 188 of WIOA and the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.  Per WIOA sec. 103(b)(1), this information must also be included in any Combined State Plan.
Topic: Addressing the accessibility of the One-Stop Delivery System for Limited English proficient individuals.	The Departments noted an omission in its initial ICR to address the accessibility needs of limited English individuals to the One-Stop Delivery System. We note the ICR already requests such information for the Vocational Rehabilitation program requirements; however the requirement must apply more broadly to the one-stop system as well to ensure LEP individuals are being served equally at one-stop centers.		We have added a requirement to the instrument requiring states to describe how they will ensure accessibility to one-stop services for individuals with limited English proficiency. We deem this additional requirement important to ensuring equal service to such individuals and add it pursuant to the Secretaries’ authority to include additional operational planning requirements as appropriate.
	A one-stop operator said we should add a subsection to section III(b) that includes a description of proposed benchmarks for the negotiated amounts and/or percentages that each one-stop partner that is a unit of State government will contribute to the local one-stop system costs		We have made a change to the collection instrument in response to this comment. We concur that more information is needed in the state plan regarding State guidelines for one-stop infrastructure cost sharing. While we decline to require a description of proposed benchmarks in the initial plan, we agree that such information will be helpful to support transparency in future years after we have issued guidance. However, we do believe the initial plan should provide information about the process the state intends to use and have made a corresponding change to the collection instrument to require this information.

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Coordination with Combined Plan Programs (IV)
Topic: Coordination with Combined Plan Programs Commenters: National Skills Coalition, National Council of State Directors of Adult Education.	An advocacy organization and a professional association said States should be required to describe the methods used for joint planning and coordination of the core programs, even where the State opts to submit a Unified State Plan rather than a Combined State Plan.		We accept the comment and made a change to the collection instrument. We concur that discussion of coordination with core programs and one-stop partners is helpful to ensure successful joint planning. We have added a requirement to describe joint planning methods and coordination for the core programs and required one-stop partners.

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Common Assurances (V) pg. 13-14
Topic: Common Assurance 3 Commenter: National Skills Coalition	Regarding Common Assurance #3, an advocacy organization and an anonymous commenter said the review and approval requirement should be extended to all agencies or entities with responsibility for Combined State Plan partner programs		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We believe the instrument, as written in assurance #4, and as required by WIOA, provides all programs the opportunity to review and comment on the State Plan. WIOA does not require Combined State Plan partner programs to approve the Combined State Plan.
Topic: Common Assurance 4, Development of Unified or Combined State Plans Commenter: The National Immigration Forum	Regarding Common Assurance #4, 1. An advocacy organization said the State planning process should also include the expertise and experience of partner organizations that serve individuals with barriers to employment because they are important partners in the public workforce system. 2. NPRM commenter requested specific number of days for public comment.	1. The commenter recommended that We add “including other organizations that provide services to individuals with barriers to employment” after “other stakeholders”	1. We accept the comment and made a change to the collection instrument. We concur that State planning process should also include the expertise and experience of partner organizations that serve individuals with barriers to employment because they are important partners in the public workforce system and have edited the requirement as recommended. 2. We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We decline to set a number of days for public comment as we believe States can use their own discretion in providing a reasonable period of time for public comment. Many states also require a minimum number of days for public comment.
Topic: Common Assurance 9 Commenter: Louisiana Workforce Commission	Regarding Common Assurance #9, a State workforce commission sought clarification on whether there are cost limitations for contributions and whether such contributions shall be factored into infrastructure costs.		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We do not believe the requested information is appropriate to the State Plan instrument. Further specifics on infrastructure costs will be provided through the Final Rule and future Departmental guidance.
Topic: Common Assurances 2,7,10,11 Commenter: Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities	The commenter supported title I-B assurance #1, but recommended including explicit reference to other people with barriers to employment, including individuals with disabilities, as well as clarification that priority of service to veterans remains in place.		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We cannot rewrite the statutory provision at WIOA section 134(c)(3)(E) that governs this requirement to add additional categories of individuals with barriers. Requirements for priority of service for veterans remain in place and are covered in a separate State plan requirement in this instrument. Sec. III(b)(7). DOL has issued guidance, TEGL 03-15, regarding the interaction of veterans’ priority of service and the priority for use of Adult funds.
Topic: Proposed Addition of Common Assurance, Shared Costs of the one-stop system Commenter: RochesterWorks	An employment service provider recommended adding the following Common Assurance: “The State will negotiate in good faith with the Local Boards its portion of the shared costs of the one-stop system, in accordance with WIOA section 121, on behalf of all one-stop partners that are units of State government.”		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We expect that States will negotiate in good faith with Local Boards on one-stop cost sharing without requiring an assurance that they will do so.

Program-Specific Requirements for Core State Plan Programs (Section VI)

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth Programs
Topic: Industry or Sector Partnerships Commenter: National Skills Coalition	Section VI(a)(2)(A) An advocacy organization said States should be required to describe how they will meet the statutory requirement to use statewide funds to support local areas by providing information on and support for the effective development, convening, and implementation of industry or sector partnerships.		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. Other areas of the State Plan requirements will provide adequate information on how the state intends to implement sector partnerships, and we prefer to leave the requirement around use of statewide funds broad enough for states to describe a number of uses of those funds, required and allowable.
Comments received through the NPRM	Section VI(b)(5) Some commenters on part 683.130 of the NPRM were concerned with the Governor’s approval of the Adult-Dislocated Worker funds transfer request and whether the Governor would complete the request timely or would unreasonably deny a request.		We accept the comment and made a change to the collection instrument. We added a requirement to include State-developed criteria for transferring Adult and Dislocated Worker funds in the plan in order to provide process transparency to local areas that may request funds transfers.
Topic: Alternative Training Models Commenter: New York City Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development	Regarding section (b)(1), Alternative Training Models, a local office of workforce development acknowledged the need to differentiate training models enumerated in section (b)(1) from apprenticeships, but said the name “employer-based” is more appropriate than the term “alternative” in reflecting the widespread use of programs		We accept the comment with modifications and made a change to the collection instrument. We agree the language should reflect more specifically the training model, and have amended the requirement to replace “alternative” with “work-based”. We believe “work-based” more accurately captures the variety of training models than “employer-based.”
Comment received through the NPRM	Require policy on criteria for selecting employers for work-based training.		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We require states to address work-based learning approaches. See VI, Adult and Dislocated Worker. (b) We decline to require a specific policy on employer criteria because the description of the state’s approach will provide us with sufficient information and also provide information to stakeholders.
Topic: Training Provider Eligibility Procedure Commenter: Louisiana Workforce Commission	Pg. 16, VI(b)(3) A State workforce commission said it is unclear whether the description of the ETP procedure at section (b)(3), Training Provider Eligibility Procedure, is for initial eligibility, subsequent eligibility or both.		We accept the comment and made a change to the collection instrument.. We concur with the commenter that the language was unclear, and the requirement has been amended to specify that the state must provide its training provider eligibility procedure for both initial and continued eligibility.
Topic: Youth Program Requirements Commenter: Louisiana Workforce Commission, New York City Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development	Pg. 16, VI(c) A couple of commenters provided input on section (c), Youth Program Requirements. A State workforce commission asked if it is the intent for the State to describe how the State ensures that all 14 program elements required under the youth program are carried out, or some other objective. A local office of workforce development asked whether “State-developed criteria,” is in reference to the “State” or the “State Board” criteria for youth programs.		We accept the comment and made a change to the collection instrument. We agree with the concern and replaced the language on p.16 c2 to the following “Describe how the state will ensure that all 14 program elements described in WIOA section 129(c)(2) are made available and effectively implemented.”
Topic: Title I-B Assurance #1 Commenter: The National Immigration Forum	An advocacy organization said title I-B, Assurance #1 should be expanded to include assurance that States have a written publicly available policy that ensures adult program funds provide a priority in the delivery of career and training services to individuals who are basic skills deficient. Specifically, the commenter recommended that we add “The State has made this policy publicly available” to the end of the assurance.		We accept the comment in part and made a change to the collection instrument. We agree that more information on the implementation of the priority in the use of Adult funds for training services and the individualized career services outlined in WIOA section 134(c)(2)(A)(xii) would be useful, and have included a new requirement to describe how the State will implement and monitor the priority of service provisions for public assistance recipients, other low-income individuals, or individuals who are basic skills deficient in accordance with the requirements of WIOA sec. 134(c)(3)(E), which applies to training services and individualized career services funded by the Adult Formula program.  However, we have not added an express requirement that the policy be made publicly available because the State plan is already required to be made publicly available for comment.
Comment received through the NPRM.	The Department received a comment related to the priority for use of Adult funds stating that Labor should require that state and local planning efforts utilize the most current Census and administrative data available to develop estimates of each priority service population in their planning efforts, and update these data year to year. These data should be utilized in federal reviews of state plans to ensure that system designs and projected investments are equitably targeted to service-priority populations; they should also be used to benchmark system performance in actual implementation of the priority for the use of Adult funds from year to year.		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We believe priority for use of Adult funds can be made without the use of Census data. The approached suggested by the commenter would be overly burdensome for both state and federal staff.

Wagner-Peyser Act Program

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Wagner-Peyser
Topic: Unemployment Insurance terminology Commenter: Louisiana Workforce Commission	Pg. 19, Wagner-Peyser Act Program Regarding section (a)(2), a State workforce commission said the usage of the term identification of unemployment insurance (UI) eligibility issues does not align with language in WIOA, asserting that there is a fundamental difference between providing assistance in filing for benefits and determining eligibility issues.	The commenter expressed concern that this provision will shift emphasis from reemployment service strategies to determining issues with benefits.	We made a change to the collection instrument in response to this comment by adding ‘and referral to UI staff for adjudication’ to the Wagner-Peyser Act Program (Employment Services) Program Specific Requirements, section (a)(2)‘. The Employment and Training Administration’s (ETA’s) intention with the language referenced by the commenter was not to de-emphasize reemployment services, but rather to emphasize the importance of enhanced connection between UI and ES/WIOA staff, and reemphasize the importance of providing reemployment services to UI claimants and other unemployed individuals.  Both WIOA Title I and the Wagner-Peyser Act (as amended by WIOA) contain new language regarding how these programs may provide services to UI claimants.  Part c of the section referenced by the commenter explains that State Plans should describe the State’s strategy for providing reemployment assistance to unemployed individuals.
			(cont’d). Additionally, Wagner-Peyser funds may now be used to conduct eligibility assessments and many states operate Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment Programs which permit other than UI staff to conduct eligibility assessments.  Therefore, ES/WIOA staff carrying out these functions need to be trained on UI eligibility issues and the processes for referring an issues to UI staff when they arise.  There is extensive discussion of the new Wagner-Peyser provisions in Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) 20-15, Unemployment Insurance and Workforce Opportunity Act of 2014, issued by ETA on August 13, 2015.  If ES/WIOA staff are providing assistance to claimants,  UIPL 20-15 reemphasizes that these staff may not make eligibility decisions and must refer any potential eligibility issues back to UI. Only UI merit staff have authority to adjudicate eligibility issues. ES/WIOA staff should be well trained to identify whether an eligibility issue(s) exists and should refer these issues to UI. This “feedback loop” and other aspects of connectivity between UI staff and staff of workforce programs, is discussed in detail in the UIPL 20-15, Section 5,A.
Topic: W-P Agricultural Outreach Plan	The Department has made a number of alterations to the requirements for the Wagner-Peyser Act Agricultural Outreach Plan based on a reassessment of the language used.		We made several changes to the collection instrument to provide clarification for a number of requirements that we deemed vague. For example, the first ICR requested states “provide an assessment of the unique needs of farmworkers in the area based on past and projected agricultural and farmworker activity in the State.” The revisions explain what the Department means by “an assessment of agricultural activity” and what it means by, “an assessment of the unique needs of MSFWs.” Such clarification helps ensure states are not doing extra work and providing superfluous information the Department does not need but is tailoring its assessment specifically to what the Department will use to analyze the report. Further, some paragraphs have been deleted because it would be more appropriate to collect such information on an annual basis through the Annual Summary.
Topic: W-P Agricultural Outreach Plan Comment received through the NPRM.	The Department of Labor received numerous comments requesting it reintroduce the requirement for State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) to consult the National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP) grantees as was required in the regulations at 20 CFR 653.107(d).		We made a change to the collection instrument in section (e)(4) in response to this comment. We support this recommendation as it will foster greater collaboration between the SWAs and the NFJP grantees.

Adult Education and Family Literacy Programs

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Adult Education (VI)
Topic: Integrated Education and Training Commenters: National Skills Coalition, National Council of State Directors of Adult Education	Pp. 23-25 An advocacy organization, professional association, and anonymous commenter said there appears to be no specific element relating to integrated education and training, as required under WIOA section 102(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II)(dd).	The commenters recommended that we amend the instrument to include a requirement that States describe how they will fund and support such activities.	The Adult Education (Title II) program specific section of the instrument provides an opportunity for states to describe funding and implementing adult education activities, including Integrated Education and Training. A small clarification made to instrument.
Topic: Clarification of the term “eligible agency” Commenter: New York City Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development	Pg. 22, (a) Aligning of Content Standards A local office of workforce development asked us to clarify whether “eligible agency” as used in this section refers to State agencies, Local Boards, and/or adult education providers (WIOA, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, etc.).		The definition of "eligible agency" for Title II is located in sec. 203(3) of Title II of WIOA.
Topic: Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education Program Commenter: New York City Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development, The National Immigration Forum	Pg. 23, A couple of commenters provided input on section (d), Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education Program. A local office of workforce development expressed concern that the language used in the fourth paragraph of (d) fails to acknowledge the populations enrolled in integrated literacy and civics education courses who are already employed and working towards job advancement and literacy gains. The commenter stated that plans for program design and success should include not only job placement outcomes but also job retention and advancement measures. A trade association said we should provide flexibility for program operators to determine the appropriate services to meet the needs of individual participants, which may not include workforce preparation and training	NYC Mayor’s Office Proposed Revision to pg. 23, (d) Fourth prgh.: “Describe how the program is designed to (1) prepare adults who are English language learners for, and place such adults in, unsubsidized employment in in-demand industries and occupations that lead to economic self-sufficiency; (2) support adults in meeting job retention and advancement goals; (3) enroll adults in appropriate continuing education and training programs; and (4) integrate with the local workforce development system and its functions to carry out the activities of the program.	Change to instrument. We decline to make the changes suggested in this comment. We have deleted the paragraph and moved it to the assurance section, where the language outlining the two requirements for design of Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education programs will remain the same. This language expresses the specific requirements for design of these programs in section 243(c)(1) and (2) of WIOA.

Vocational Rehabilitation

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Vocational Rehabilitation
Topic: Interagency Collaboration and Agreements Commenter: The National Disability Institute	Pg. 25 An advocacy organization applauded the attention that is given to reporting coordination and collaboration between State VR agencies and relevant entities, specifically inter-agency and inter-department cooperatives		No change. We appreciate the comment that supports inter-agency collaboration.
Topic: Cooperative Agreements with Private Nonprofit Organizations Commenter: Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities	Section (e), Cooperative Agreements with Private Nonprofit Organizations: The State should describe the manner in which the designated State agency establishes cooperative agreements with private non-profit VR service providers.		No Change. Only those elements described in Sec 101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act are required to be included in the VR services portion of the state plan.
Topic: Coordination with Employers Commenter: Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities	Section (g), Coordination with Employers: The instrumentshould include a reference to employers who are Federal contractors to assist with their compliance with Rehabilitation Act section 503 and VEVRAA.		No Change. Only those elements described in Sec 101(a) of the Rehab Act are required to be included in the VR services portion of the state plan. Federal departments may provide guidance and assistance as needed to ensure the promotion of hiring of individuals with disabilities in accordance with Sec 503 of the Rehab Act as amended by WIOA.
Topic: Statewide Assessment Commenter: Consortium for Citizens with disabilities	Section (j), Statewide Assessment: The instrument should include a section under (j)(1) for those who are veterans with non-service-connected disabilities on public assistance.		Only those elements described in Sec 101(a) of the Rehab Act are required to be included in the VR services portion of the state plan. State VR agencies may assess other needs as appropriate, including the needs of veterans with non-service related disabilities on public assistance.
Topic: Annual Estimates Commenter: Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities	Section (k), Annual Estimates: This data should be disaggregated by age and disability.		Only those elements described in Sec 101(a) of the Rehab Act are required to be included in the VR services portion of the state plan. State VR agencies may disaggregate data in order to provide a more detailed assessment as deemed appropriate.

Performance Goals (Appendix 1)

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Performance Goals
Topic: Employment Outcomes, Difficulty meeting current submission deadlines Commenter: Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Workforce Development Agency State of Michigan	Pg. 36 Two commenters expressed concern over whether states will be able to meet current State Plan submission deadlines: One commenter expressed concern over limitations for tracking client earnings in the 2nd and 4th quarter due to the lack of data agreements at the federal level. Commenter also expressed concern over the lack of published guidance on how to report Credential Attainment, Measurable Skills Gains, or Effectiveness in Serving Employers. Another commenter noted that some core partners do not collect the information needed to establish a reasonable baseline of comparison and was uncertain if the requested information needed to complete the table will be available in time to meet the State Plan submission deadline.	Commenter recommends that we allow states to submit State Plans without completing the appendix until the final WIOA Collection Request has been finalized, published, and states have the necessary systems and data with which to calculate the required measures. DARS proposes that we waive Appendix 1 until final guidance is published and states have time to collect adequate data with which to conduct accurate forecasting.	We made a change to the collection instrument in response to the comments. We have included specific instructions for how to populate the chart for the first two years of the plan to account for lack of data availability.

Program-Specific Requirements for Combined State Plan Partner Programs (Section VII)

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Topic: Crosswalks of Substantially Similar Plan Elements Commenter: National Skills Coalition	An advocacy organization said we should identify program-specific elements for such programs that may be adequately addressed through responses provided in sections I-IV of the State Plan. The commenter said we could develop crosswalks of substantially similar Plan elements and allow States to respond to program-specific elements through incorporation by reference of responses to the Combined State Plan		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. While we concur that identical or similar plan provisions relative to required and optional partner programs may be “integrated” or “synthesized” together in the combined plan document, we decline to develop cross-walks of those elements at this time. However, in responding to a program-specific requirement that may be duplicative of an element addressed in other parts of a Combined Plan, a state may clearly identify where they feel they have responded to the requirement in the plan document.  If the provision is not so identified, then the Federal task of reviewing the document and rendering a decision on completeness may become a major challenge and burdensome to the state and Federal staff.
Topic: Clarification of the Term “The State” in the Perkins Act Commenters: National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium (NASDCTEC) and the Association of Career and Technical Education (ACTE).	A joint submission from two professional associations requested clarification on the use of the term “the State” as it pertains to inclusion of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act in a Combined State Plan, per the supplemental document titled, “Supplement to Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act- program specific.”	The commenter asserted that this document uses “the State” in lieu of the statutorily required term “the State eligible agency,” at least as it pertains to what entity is responsible for the Perkins Act’s participation in a Combined State Plan.	We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We were not seeking comment on the program-specific elements for the Perkins portion since it is separately approved data collection. We note that "The State” means the eligible state agency.

Supporting Statement

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Topic: PRA Burden Hours & Monetized Time Value Commenter: Workforce Development Agency State of Michigan	Pp. 9 and 12, PRA Burden Hours and Monetized Time Value Tables A State workforce development agency referred to the States’ total estimated burden, which is $141,708, and noted that the Federal burden is $240,987. The commenter asserted that, unless the $141,708 value of respondent time is for each of the six core program respondents, the estimated burden for States to fulfill the program-specific requirements for all six core programs appears to be significantly underestimated.		We accept the comment and made a change to the supporting statement in response to this comment. We concur with the commenter that the burden estimated for the Federal review was overstated relative to the State burden. After further analysis of the burden estimate, we corrected a mathematical error in item #14 that failed to annualize state plan receipt as was done for the state burden estimate.

Other Comments

Topic and Commenter	Comment/Question (Page number and Section)	Further explanation or comments	Response to Comment
Topic: General feedback, alignment across programs Commenter: National Skills Coalition	An advocacy organization stated that the Information Collection Request provides a reasonable synthesis of the required elements and provides States with sufficient guidance, but certain elements could be strengthened to ensure that States and programs are moving towards true alignment across programs.		We have not made a change to collection instrument in response to these comments because we do not interpret the comments to require a specified change to the instrument. We will take these comments into account for future guidance and technical assistance.
Topic: Responsiveness of instrument to the needs of individuals with disabilities Commenter: Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities	The commenter stated that the draft instrument responds to many of its concerns, but expressed continued reservations that certain State Plan elements may not truly reflect the experiences of or respond to the needs of people with disabilities. The commenter also noted that, while the draft Plan elements address the importance of outreach to employers in economic and workforce analyses and in workforce development strategies, there are no specific references to employers with obligations under Rehabilitation Act section 503 and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) – important tools that the commenter said should not be overlooked in States’ strategic and operational planning.		We have not made a change to collection instrument in response to these comments because we do not interpret the comments to require a change to the instrument. We will take these comments into account for future guidance and technical assistance.
Topic: Individuals with barriers to employment Commenter: National Immigration Forum	Commenter commended our collaboration on the instrument but also urged us to include entities that serve individuals with barriers to employment, including immigrants, in outreach and technical assistance efforts.		We have not made a change to collection instrument in response to this comment because we do not interpret the comment to require a change to the instrument. We will take this suggestion into account when conducting technical assistance and issuing guidance.
Topic: General feedback, need for additional funding Commenter: The National Council of State Directors of Adult Education	A professional association appreciated several elements of the WIOA legislation (e.g., adding adult education as a core program, the bill’s emphasis on college and career readiness) and asserted that the need for additional funding has never been greater.		We have not made a change to collection instrument in response to this comment because we do not interpret the comment to request a change to the instrument.
Topic: Feedback on instrument generally Commenter: Jea Public	A private citizen opposed “the program” in general		We have not made a change to collection instrument in response to this comment because we do not interpret the comment to request a change to the instrument.
Topic: SCSEP Commenter: Pennsylvania Department of Aging, R. Claroni	A private citizen recommended that pages 27-29 of the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) component related to (d) SCSEP Operations be deleted from the SCSEP Combined State Plan requirements		We are not seeking comment on these data elements, which are covered by a separate collection number governing the SCSEP data collection. DOL will share this comment with SCSCEP.
	Several commenters expressed support for the collection requirements.

NPRM Comments That Were Considered for the Instrument – Decision was made not to change Instrument.
JFF	NPRM comment—state plan should require evidenced based strategies as outlined in the Job-Driven Training reports		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We believe the instrument throughout already reflects the content of the job-driven report.
CLASP	NPRM comment—require states to include in the state plan how they will use measurable skill gains and a list of the measurable skill gains they will use		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We are addressing measurable skill gains through the Performance collection instrument.
WA Workforce Board	Request for guidance on burden of technology upgrades		We decline to change the collection instrument in response to this comment. We will take this suggestion into account for future guidance or technical assistance.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than re-enumeration of contractors or grantees.

No payment or gifts will be provided to respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

There are no assurances of confidentiality; respondents are State agencies, and State plans are public documents.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

No information of a sensitive nature will be requested in the proposed information collection.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:

• Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.

• If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.

• Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included in Item 14.

Respondents and Annual Responses

There are 57 States and outlying areas, including the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and, for certain programs, the Republic of Palau. These jurisdictions will submit a plan the first year that plans are required, and all 57 states and outlying areas are required to submit an update in the third year of the planning cycle. No other submissions are required unless it is a program-specific requirement for an optional program included in a State’s Combined State Plan. This means that the Department estimates that it will receive 38 State Plans annually over three years. [(57 + 57)/3 = 38.] For purposes of Reginfo.gov database entry purposes, the Department assumes 38 respondents will annually submit an average of one response each.

As explained in item 1 of this supporting statement, the WIOA State Plan collection will replace the following currently-approved State Plan collections for the core programs under the Workforce Investment Act:

• Control Number 1205-0398, Planning Guidance and Instructions for Submission of the Strategic State Plan and Plan Modifications for Title I of the WIA and Wagner-Peyser Act;

• Control Number 1830-0026, Adult Education and Family Literacy Act State Plan; and

• Control Number 1820-0500, State Plan for the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program and Supplement for the Supported Employment Services.

In an effort to give full meaning to the requirement that States submit a Unified or Combined State Plan, this ICR would consolidate all currently-approved program-specific State Plan submissions for each of the core programs into one information collection instrument. To that end, the total burden hours associated with this new consolidated information collection instrument is the sum of (1) the burden required to satisfy the integrated strategic and operational planning requirements, referred to as the “common elements”, and (2) the program-specific requirements for each core program referenced above.

Burden Hours and Monetized Time Value

The Department estimates the annual time burden to be 8,135.8 hours. The Department estimates that it will receive 38 State Plans annually over three years [(57 + 57)/3 = 38.] The Department estimates each response will take 86 hours for the common elements portion of the Unified State Plan response (38 responses x 86 hours = 3,268 hours.) The Department estimates for core program-specific elements the following burden:

• Title I Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth and W-P programs will take 1,520 hours (38 responses x 40 hours= 1,520 hours);

• AEFLA program will take 1,710 hours (38 responses x 45 hours = 1,710);

• Vocational Rehabilitation programs will take 1,628 hours (38 responses x 42.85 hours = 1,628).

Furthermore, for purposes of this analysis, the Department estimates 10 respondents will submit a Combined State Plan and that each response will take one additional hour to complete. (10 responses x 1 hours = 10 hours. 10 hours/38 total responses = 0.25, rounded to the quarter hour). This results in an average total burden of hours per response (86 hours + 40 hours + 45 hours + 42.85 hours + 0.25 hours = 214.1 hours). The total annual time burden would be 8,135.8 hours. (214.1 x 38 responses = 8,135.8 hours.).

Burden Summary Table for All Agencies (See final paragraph of this section for information on how burden is to be apportioned among the participating agencies.)

Activity	Number of Respondents	Frequency	Total Annual Responses	Time Per Response	Total Annual Burden (Hours)	Hourly Rate*	Monetized Value of Respondent Time
WIOA State Plan Preparation/ Submission for Common Elements	57	Every 2 years	38	86 hours	3,268	$43.231	$141,275
WIOA State Plan Preparation/ Submission for Title I (Adult, Dislocated Worker, Youth) and W-P program specific elements	57	Every 2 years	38	40 hours	1,520	$43.23	$65,710
WIOA State Plan Preparation/ Submission for AEFLA program-specific elements	57	Every 2 years	38	45 hours	1,710	$43.23	$73,923
WIOA State Plan Preparation/ Submission for Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program-specific elements	57	Every 2 years	38	42.85 hours	1,628	$43.23	$70,378
Sum Total across all common and program-specific elements			38	213.85 hours	8,126	43.23	$351,287
Combined state Plan element	10		38	.25	10	43.23	$432
Sum Total for Unified and Combined State Plans				214.1 hours	8,135.8	43.23	$351,711

The burden required for fulfilling the program-specific State Plan requirements (for the non-core, optional programs that may be included in the Combined State Plan) will continue to be separately accounted for under the non-core, optional programs’ existing, approved Information Collections, where planning requirements exist for those programs. Those existing Information Collections are described in the table below for reference only, and the same burden exists for those programs regardless of inclusion in a Combined State Plan. In order to avoid double counting burden those figures are not included.

Freestanding Associated Information Collections

Optional Program Control Number	Approved Burden Hours
Control Number 1830-0029, Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-270) State Plan Guide	2,240 hours
Control Number 0970-0145, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) State Plan Guidance	594 hours
Control Number 0584-0083, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)Operating Guidelines, Forms, and Waivers, Program and Budget Summary Statement	1431 hours2
Control Number 1225-0086, Grant Application Requirements for the Jobs for Veterans State Grants Program	1620 hours
Control Number 1205-0132, Unemployment Insurance State Quality Service Plan Planning and Reporting Guidelines	1,530 hours
Control Number 1205-0040, Senior Community Service Employment Program Performance Measurement System	406 hours
Control Number 0970-0382, Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Model Plan Applications	112 hours3

In order to allow partner agencies to sign on to this common form instrument, all Departments, except Labor and Education, will assume one response for 86 hours, a combined burden share of 344 hours. (4 Departments x 86 hours = 344 hours.) Responses between the Departments of Labor and Education for the remaining 2,934 burden hours (3,268 hours – 344 hours = 2,924 hours) are respectively apportioned on a 33/67 percent split in accordance with the level of burden hours needed to address the responses for the common elements of the Unified State Plan requirements as shown by the prior burden totals (i.e., 2,280 Labor hours/6,845 total hours = 33 percent; 4,565 Education hours/6,845 total hours = 67 percent. Thus the DOL share of the burden will be 968 hours (2,934 x 33% = 968) and the Department of Education share will be 1,966 hours. (2,934 x 67% = 1,966 hours.)

While States receive funds that may be used for administration (in part to cover salaries) to ensure this information collection imposes no unfunded mandates, we have monetized the burden hours as follows: 8,135.8 hours x $43.23⁴ = $351,711. This cost is reflected in item 14.

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14).

• The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life); and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.

• If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rule-making containing the information collection, as appropriate.

• Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

The agencies associate no other costs with this information collection. Program funds provided by the Federal government that may be used in part for administration may be used by States for any information technology systems needed to comply with this collection.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.

Based on program experience and on an assessment of average times spent reviewing plans under WIA, it is estimated that, on average, 8 GS-13s based in the Washington, DC area will spend a total of 8 hours each, or 64 hours total, reviewing each plan. Pay for such an employee at the Step 4 level is $47.87.⁵ Providing a 38 percent allowance to cover fringe benefits and other costs, total per hour cost for each employee is $66.06 ($47.87 x 1.38 = $66.06); thus, the Federal cost of reviewing and processing each Plan is estimated to be $4,227.84. As noted previously, the Department estimates that it will receive 38 plans annually over three years, resulting in a total cost of $160,657.92 for all 38 plans (38 plans x 64 hours x $66.06 = $160,657.92). Since plans are reviewed electronically, operational costs, including printing and support staff costs, do not apply. This information is summarized in the table below.

Federal Salary Summary Table

# Federal Staff	Hours Per Person to Review Each Plan	Per Person Hourly Rate (salary and benefits)	Cost Per Plan	Number of Plans	Total
8	8	$66.06	$4,227.84	38	$160,657.92

The cost for developing the Web portal is estimated to require the redirection of existing Federal staff time to determine the business requirements of the Web portal, programming updates, and system testing. While no additional funds are required, the redirection of existing FTE is estimated to require on average, 15 percent of 2 GS-14s (624 hours) and 50 percent of a GS-14 (1,040 hours) based in the Washington, DC area. Pay for such an employee at the Step 5 level is $58.28.⁶ Providing a 38 percent allowance to cover fringe benefits and other costs, total per hour cost for each employee is $80.42. Thus, the Federal cost of developing the Web portal is $133,819 ($80.42 x 1664 hours).

As calculated in item 12, the Federal cost related to funds used for administration that fund State salaries is estimated to be $351,711.

Total Federal costs are estimated to be $294,477 based on the calculations included above ($160,658 salary + $133,819 Web portal =$294,477).

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reporting in Items

12 or 13.

This is a new information collection that will increase the DOL information collection budget by 968 hours.

In the interest of transparency, once all partner agencies have taken the needed steps to sign on to the collection (an action that cannot happen until after the DOL collection is approved), the combined time burden will be 8,135.8 annual burden hours.

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation, and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For the first planning year, State Plans are required to be submitted to DOL by March 3, 2016. The Departments of Education and Labor must complete analysis, review, and response on acceptability of State Plans within 90 days of receipt. For any Combined State Plan programs administered by HHS, USDA, or HUD that a State may include in its submission, response for that portion must be completed within 120 days of receipt. Once approved, we will publish the State Plans electronically on the online submission platform. Such plans will be made available on the Web portal publicly. States may choose to separately publish approved State Plans in their preferred format.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The Department requests approval not to display the expiration date on any instruments, as guidance will only be issued when updates are required. Including the instrument expiration date could cause confusion were the Department required to republish guidance only because the expiration date was extended; States might be confused that additional changes to the collection were being made. Were the Department required to display the expiration date but not to reissue guidance, States might become confused as to whether the collection remains valid. The Department believes inclusion of the public protection clause in the public burden statement provides sufficient notice, especially now that the Reginfo.gov database provides easy access to see whether a collection of information is approved.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in the "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission."

No exceptions are requested.

Appendix I: Sample Screenshots of State Plan Submission Portal

1. Screen print of a Word document generated by the State Plan showing the structured outline of the document, as it could look in its final form. 

2. Screen shot showing a checkbox for each of the Combined State Plan options, as it could look in its final form.

3. Screen print of a PDF generated by the State Plan showing the PDF Bookmarks pane, as it could look in its final form.

4. Narrative and data entry field as it could look in its final form, corresponding to state plan requirements.

1 The hourly rate is computed by dividing the FY 2014 national average PS/PB annual salary for state staff as provided for through the distribution of state UI administrative grants (http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL_23_13_Att1.pdf) by the number of hours worked in a year (1,711). $73,972 annual rate/1,711 hours = $43.23. (180+30=210 + 2= 212 x $43.23=$9,164.76)

2 This number represents estimated average burden for the portion of the SNAP plan that covers programs authorized under section 6(d)(4) and section 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 only.

3 This number represents estimated average burden for the portion of the CSBG plan that covers employment and training activities only.

4 The hourly rate is computed by dividing the FY 2014 national average PS/PB annual salary for state staff as provided for through the distribution of state UI administrative grants (http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL_23_13_Att1.pdf) by the number of hours worked in a year (1,711). $73,972 annual rate/1,711 hours = $43.23. (180+30=210 + 2= 212 x $43.23=$9,164.76)

5 See http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2015/DCB_h.pdf.

6 See http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2015/DCB_h.pdf.

7