27584 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 

Center, and that this project will not 

have a significant adverse impact on the 

environment. In accordance with 29 

CFR 11.11(d) and 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2), 

a preliminary Environmental 

Assessment was presented through a 

public meeting held on 5/4/2010 at the 

Paul Simon Job Corps Center. No 

comments were received regarding the 

Environmental Assessment (EA). OSEC 

has reviewed the conclusion of the EA, 

and agrees with the finding of no 

significant impact. This notice serves as 

the Final Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) for Small Vertical Wind 

Turbine and Solar Installation at the 

Paul Simon Job Corps Center located at 

3348 South Kedzie Avenue, Chicago, IL 

60623. The preliminary EA are adopted 

in final with no change. 

Dated: May 10, 2010. 

Edna Primrose, 

National Director of Job Corps. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11662 Filed 5–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Notice of Availability of Funds and 

Solicitation for Grant Applications 

(SGA) to Fund Demonstration Projects 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor. 

Announcement Type: New, Notice of 

Solicitation for Grant Applications 

(SGA). 

Funding Opportunity Number: SGA/ 

DFA PY 09–10. 

Catalog of Federal Assistance 

Number: 17.261. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL), Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), announces the 

availability of $12.2 million from funds 

made available through the FY 2010 

DOL budget for Training and 

Employment Services for grants to State 

Workforce Agencies (SWA) to develop 

the Workforce Data Quality Initiative 

(WDQI). Grants awarded will provide 

SWAs the opportunity to develop and 

use State workforce longitudinal 

administrative data systems. These State 

longitudinal data systems will, at a 

minimum, include information on 

programs that provide training, 

employment services, and 

unemployment insurance and will be 

linked longitudinally at the individual 

level to allow for analysis which will 

lead to enhanced opportunity for 

program evaluation and lead to better 

information for customers and 

stakeholders of the workforce system. 

Where such longitudinal systems do not 

exist or are incipient, WDQI grant 

assistance may be used to design and 

develop workforce data systems that are 

longitudinal and which are designed to 

link with relevant education data or 

longitudinal education data systems. 

WDQI grant assistance may also be used 

to improve upon and more effectively 

use existing State longitudinal systems. 

This solicitation provides background 

information on workforce longitudinal 

database systems, describes the 

application submission requirements, 

outlines the process that eligible entities 

must use to apply for funds covered by 

this solicitation, and details how 

grantees will be selected. 

DATES: Key Dates: The closing date for 

receipt of applications under this 

announcement is August 16, 2010. 

Applications must be received at the 

address below no later than 4 p.m. 

(Eastern Time). Application and 

submission information is explained in 

detail in Section IV of this SGA. A prerecorded Webinar for prospective 

applicants will be online at: http:// 

www.workforce3one.org and available 

for viewing on June 21, 2010, by 3 p.m. 

ET, and accessible any time after that 

date. Reviewing this Webinar is not 

mandatory but applicants are 

encouraged to take advantage of this 

resource to get questions answered. 

ADDRESSES: Mailed applications must be 

addressed to the U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Division of Federal 

Assistance, Attention: Willie E. Harris, 

Grant Officer, Reference SGA/DFA PY 

09–10, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room N4716, Washington, DC 20210. 

Applications sent via facsimile (fax), 

telegram or e-mail will not be accepted. 

Information about applying online also 

can be found in Section IV.C of this 

document. Applicants are advised that 

mail delivery in the Washington, DC 

area may be delayed due to mail 

decontamination procedures. Handdelivered proposals will be received at 

the above address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Grant Purpose 

The WDQI will provide funding to 

selected SWAs to accomplish a 

combination of the following objectives: 

i. Develop or improve State workforce 

longitudinal data systems. Workforce 

data are already reported by localities, 

States, and nationally so grantees will 

not be creating entirely new data 

collection systems. What will be new, 

however, is coordinating, or expanding/ 

strengthening the coordination of these 

workforce data sources so individuallevel records can be matched to one 

another across programs and over time. 

ii. Enable workforce data to be 

matched with education data, to 

ultimately create longitudinal data 

systems with individual-level 

information from pre-kindergarten (preK) through post-secondary and into the 

workforce system to build capacity to 

measure outcomes while protecting 

individual privacy. For many years DOL 

has supported efforts to create 

workforce longitudinal administrative 

databases linked to data from other 

programs, including education data. The 

WDQI will greatly extend and expand 

this effort and complement the 

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems 

(SLDS) grant program administered by 

the Department of Education (ED). 

iii. Improve the quality and breadth of 

the data in workforce longitudinal data 

systems. It is important that data in the 

longitudinal systems are complete and 

accurate and include an array of 

performance information in order to 

enhance knowledge about the workforce 

system and the impact of State 

workforce development programs. Data 

collection systems might also be 

improved to strengthen data validity 

and to minimize the reporting burden 

on State agencies and training 

providers. 

iv. Use longitudinal data to provide 

useful information about program 

operations and analyze the performance 

of education and training programs. 

Policymakers and practitioners can use 

this data analysis to make programmatic 

adjustments that improve the workforce 

system. 

v. Provide user-friendly information 

to consumers to help them select the 

education and training programs that 

best suit their needs. For example, 

Washington State displays information 

about training program outcomes at 

http://www.careerbridge.wa.gov, 

allowing consumers to compare the 

performance of different training 

providers. 

The relative prominence of each 

objective for a given State will primarily 

be determined by the State’s ‘‘launchpoint’’ for developing a workforce 

longitudinal data system that will 

ultimately be linkable to education data 

and will reflect high data quality 

standards while protecting individual 

privacy (see the Section I.A.5). 

Additional details on the ‘‘launch point’’ 

for States can be found in the section of 

this SGA in Section I.A.1. 

B. Background 

President Obama’s FY 2010 Budget 

requested $15 million and the Congress 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 27585 

1Administrative Data Research and Evaluation 

(ADARE) Alliance Web site. 2009. http:// 

www2.ubalt.edu/jfi/adare/. 

appropriated over $12 million for the 

development of workforce longitudinal 

data systems. Single-state applicants can 

qualify for up to $1 million in funding. 

Multi-state consortium applicants are 

eligible for a grant amount of up to $3 

million (see Section III.A for more 

information on funding eligibility). 

These funds will be made available 

through competitive WDQI grants 

administered by DOL in support of a 

parallel and much larger effort, the 

SLDS grants. The American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) 

appropriated $245 million to ED to 

support statewide (or in some cases, 

multi-State consortia) longitudinal 

education data systems with data on 

individuals participating in pre-K 

through grade 12 as well as postsecondary education and the workforce. 

The grant instructions for ED’s SLDS 

program expressly include provisions to 

capture the data on workforce 

participation of students before and 

after they leave education systems. A 

request for applications was issued by 

ED on July 24, 2009, and applications 

were due December 4, 2009. The grants 

are scheduled to be awarded in May 

2010. 

Some innovative States already have 

shown the advantages of SWAs 

partnering with education and other 

entities to create comprehensive, 

longitudinal data systems. The State of 

Florida, for example, has developed a 

comprehensive system that links 

individuals’ demographic information, 

high school transcripts, college 

transcripts, quarterly unemployment 

insurance (UI) wage data, and workforce 

services data. Such data systems can 

provide valuable information to 

consumers, practitioners, policymakers, 

and researchers about the performance 

of education and workforce 

development programs. 

As with the above section and for the 

remainder of this document, reference 

to the databases being created under the 

WDQI may be called ‘‘workforce 

longitudinal administrative databases’’ 

or ‘‘workforce longitudinal databases’’ 

interchangeably. 

C. Classification of Workforce System 

Data 

Workforce system administrative data 

are collected as part of the operations of 

a variety of programs administered at 

the State and local level. These 

programs provide employment and 

training services, pay UI benefits to 

unemployed workers, and collect 

employer-paid UI payroll taxes that pay 

for UI benefits. The employment and 

training data come from a number of 

large and small workforce programs that 

provide employment and/or training 

services to employed and unemployed 

workers. Information is available for 

each service that is provided to each 

worker by each program. Below are 

examples of the most common types of 

workforce data. 

i. Wage Records: The UI 

administrative data come from State UI 

programs through regular employer 

reporting on contributions to the UI 

payroll tax system. An important source 

of data on the employment and earnings 

of American workers comes from these 

UI wage record reports that are derived 

from the tax forms on covered 

establishments’ wage and salary 

employment filed quarterly by 

employers. UI wage record reports 

include: The number of workers, worker 

names, Social Security numbers, 

earnings, and employers’ industry codes 

and locations. UI wage records are 

comprehensive, as over 90 percent of 

wage and salary employment is in 

covered establishments. Data are also 

available for civilian and military 

Federal employees, but not for the selfemployed. 

ii. Employment and Training Services: 

Each of the workforce system programs 

provides employment and/or training 

services to unemployed, 

underemployed or employed 

individuals. Some programs also 

provide services to new entrants to the 

labor market (with the exception of the 

UI program). Data on types of 

employment and training services 

received, such as self-service and 

informational activities, prevocational 

services, and specific training services, 

are available from a number of 

workforce programs including those 

authorized under the Workforce 

Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), the 

Wagner-Peyser Act, from the Trade 

Adjustment Assistance program, the 

Registered Apprenticeship program and 

other workforce programs. Transaction 

information is available for each service 

(e.g., training receipt, job referral, job 

search assistance) that is provided to 

participants in each program, together 

with their personal characteristics and 

other demographic information. Not 

only is information provided on 

participation numbers for employment 

services and training programs, 

information includes employment 

status, pre-program earnings, 

occupation of employment, and 

education participation or completion 

levels of individuals. 

iii. Unemployment Insurance 

Benefits: The UI program also collects 

data on applicants for and recipients of 

UI benefits, including the number of 

persons that apply for UI benefits, the 

number that collect benefits, and the 

amount of benefits paid. Administrative 

data collected in the UI benefit claims 

process include worker demographic 

information such as age, former 

occupation and industry, in addition to 

residency information (including the 

street, city, State, and ZIP code). 

iv. The Federal Employment Data 

Exchange System (FEDES): This data 

system provides States access to Federal 

civilian and military employment and 

earnings records maintained by the 

Office of Personnel Management, the 

Department of Defense and the U.S. 

Postal Service. 

Data for all of these programs can be 

linked for any worker because all of 

these programs collect the Social 

Security Number of the participating 

individual. Workforce data can 

determine whether individuals have 

been employed, what their earnings and 

industry of employment are if they 

work, whether they become 

unemployed, whether they collect 

unemployment insurance upon 

unemployment, what employment 

services they receive from SWAs, and 

whether they use training services. 

D. Workforce Longitudinal 

Administrative Data Systems That Are 

in Place or in Progress 

From a recent survey conducted by 

the National Association of State 

Workforce Agencies (NASWA), DOL 

received information about the current 

extent of matching State education 

agency data with SWA data. The 

information was compiled from 

responses from the SWA research 

directors. Thirty-one responses were 

received from the 53 jurisdictions that 

have UI programs. These results are 

supported by recent data gathered 

through Carl D. Perkins Act 

accountability reporting which found 

that 31 States use UI wage records to 

determine employment after leaving 

post-secondary education. 

DOL also has supplementary 

information on the development of 

workforce longitudinal databases from a 

consortium of nine States that currently 

maintain longitudinal administrative 

data. ETA has had a longstanding 

contractual relationship with this 

consortium of States to conduct 

workforce research, analysis, and 

evaluations. This group is called the 

Administrative Data Research and 

Evaluation Project (ADARE) alliance,1

and the members are California, Florida, 

Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
27586 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 

2Stevens, David W. 2004. Responsible Use of 

Administrative Records for Performance 

Accountability: Features of Successful Partnerships. 

http://www.ubalt.edu/jfi/adare/reports/ 

ADAREcookbook504.pdf. 

Ohio, Texas, and Washington. DOL has 

funded the ADARE project since 1998.2

However, recently funds have not been 

available to support research and 

analysis to make full use of the linkage 

between longitudinal workforce and 

education data. Nonetheless, the 

ADARE partners have developed 

working relationships with State 

education or research entities (except 

for the Florida ADARE partner which is 

the State education agency). 

These two sources of information (the 

NASWA survey and the ADARE States) 

indicate that the extent of data matching 

and development of longitudinal data 

systems varies: 

i. About 20 States currently do not 

have their State workforce data arranged 

in longitudinal databases, nor do they 

match their workforce data with 

education data. 

ii. Almost 20 States do conduct some 

workforce data matching with State 

educational data, but they do not have 

State workforce data collected and 

arranged longitudinally. 

iii. About a dozen States have 

substantial State workforce longitudinal 

databases, and almost all of these 

databases have been linked to available 

State educational data (both 

longitudinal and non-longitudinal data 

sets). Most of these States are part of the 

ADARE consortium. 

The goal of the WDQI is to 

substantially reduce this variation and 

build stronger longitudinal data systems 

through workforce data matching which 

can link to education data. 

E. Existing State Examples of Workforce 

Longitudinal Data Systems 

Altogether, about a dozen States 

(including the nine ADARE States) have 

developed substantial State workforce 

longitudinal data systems. Most of these 

States created these systems using State 

funds for a variety of applications, 

including tracking program 

performance, analyzing program 

activities and conducting research and 

analysis. A small number of these States 

have accumulated workforce and other 

longitudinal data for several decades. 

As of 2009, nine States continued to 

participate in the ADARE alliance— 

California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 

Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Texas and 

Washington. All but two—Florida and 

Washington—use a State research 

university to assemble, house, and 

analyze their data. In all cases, 

cooperative arrangements through 

memoranda of understanding and datasharing agreements have been 

developed, to enable the State WIA, 

Wagner-Peyser Act, and unemployment 

insurance programs to share their 

workforce data as input to the workforce 

longitudinal administrative database. 

In all cases, State agencies receive 

analyses and reports derived from the 

databases that can be used to 

understand and improve workforce 

programs. However, each State has 

initiated and operated its workforce 

longitudinal data system in a different 

manner. 

WDQI applicants may be able to learn 

from the various approaches of the 

ADARE States. These ADARE models 

form a useful set of examples for any 

SWA considering applying for a WDQI 

grant. While innovation is encouraged, 

applicants should make full use of the 

existing knowledge and various models 

for building workforce longitudinal 

databases that have been developed in 

this field. Provided below is a brief 

description of four different State 

approaches that highlight successful 

workforce longitudinal databases 

models and applications of the 

information these databases provide. 

1. University-led Partnership to 

Manage Statewide Data-Sharing— 

Maryland: In Maryland, the research 

component of longitudinal data-sharing 

was prioritized at the outset of the 

partnership between the Jacob France 

Institute of the University of MarylandBaltimore County and the Maryland 

SWA, now the Maryland Department of 

Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR). 

The Jacob France Institute has been 

authorized through data-sharing 

agreements with DLLR and various 

other State agencies to hold primary 

performance evaluation responsibilities 

for Maryland’s WIA Title I–B (Adult, 

Dislocated Worker and Youth 

employment and training services), Title 

II (Adult Education and Literacy) and 

Title IV (Vocational Rehabilitation) 

programs, TANF High Performance 

Bonus Indicator Calculations, and core 

indicators of the Carl D. Perkins Act 

secondary and post-secondary adult 

vocational education and training 

services. As the steward of this 

performance reporting system, the Jacob 

France Institute has formed partnerships 

with the Governor’s Workforce 

Investment Board, the Maryland Higher 

Education Commission, the Maryland 

State Department of Education, the 

Maryland Department of Business and 

Economic Development, the Maryland 

Department of Human Resources, the 

University System of Maryland, and 

locally with the Montgomery County 

Public Schools, the Baltimore City 

Public Schools, the Empower Baltimore 

Management Corporation, and 

individual community colleges. 

In addition to statewide data-sharing, 

the Jacob France Institute has been 

awarded grant funds to develop multistate longitudinal data-sharing systems 

among Delaware, the District of 

Columbia, New Jersey, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia and West 

Virginia. This model of interstate datasharing captures workforce and 

education data for individuals who are 

mobile in their pursuit of employment, 

training or education. 

2. University-led Partnership With 

Common Performance Management 

System—Illinois: The longitudinal data 

system developed in Illinois is an 

example of a productive evolution of 

data-sharing among State agencies and 

educational institutions. In the mid1980s the Center for Governmental 

Studies (Center) at Northern Illinois 

University connected with the 

Department of Commerce and 

Community Affairs (DCCA) and the 

Illinois Department of Employment 

Security (IDES) to link UI wage records 

to program participant records under 

the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). 

Less than a decade later, after having 

established themselves as an authority 

on linking administrative databases, the 

Center was awarded a grant to fund a 

project linking UI administrative data 

from multiple States. 

Beginning in 1994, the Center 

undertook a project to develop and 

implement a common performance 

management framework which led to 

the Illinois Common Performance 

Management System (ICPMS) linking UI 

wage records with client data from JTPA 

workforce development programs, adult 

education, primary and secondary 

vocational education, and welfare-towork. With the implementation of WIA, 

the Center began a project to expand its 

administrative database longitudinally 

to include historical archives of UI wage 

records which were easily accessible. 

The Center benefits from the 

partnership by gaining access to data 

which allows for in-depth research. 

Likewise, the Illinois workforce 

agencies benefit from being able to use 

the database and related research to 

improve system performance. The 

partnership is based on transparency 

and cooperation and has led to analysis 

of longitudinal data that has influenced 

frontline program management and 

public policy. 

3. Vendor Contracted Analysis of 

Longitudinal Data—Washington: The 

Washington State longitudinal 

administrative database began as a DOL 

project in the late 1970s and early 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 27587 

3Florida Case Study: Building a Student-Level 

Longitudinal Data System. The Data Quality 

Campaign, August 2006. http:// 

www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/State_SpecificFlorida_2006_Site_Visit.pdf. 

4Heinrich Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser and Ken 

Troske. 2009. Workforce Investment Act NonExperimental Evaluation: Final Report. Washington 

DC: U.S. Department of Labor. http://wdr.doleta.gov

/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_

resultDetails&pub_id=2419&mp=y. Hollenbeck, 

Kevin, Daniel Schroeder, Christopher T. King, and 

Wei-Jung Huang. 2008. Net Impact Estimates for 

Services Provided Through the Workforce 

Investment Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Labor. http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.

cfm?fuseaction=dsp_resultDetails&pub

_id=2367&mp=y. 

5 King, Christopher T. and Peter R Mueser. 2005. 

Welfare and Work: Experience in Six Cities. 

Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for 

Employment Research. http://www.upjohninstitute.

org/publications/titles/waw.html. 

6Hollenbeck, Kevin M. 2003. Net Impact 

Estimates of the Workforce Development System in 

Washington State. Upjohn Institute Staff Working 

Paper No. 03–92. http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/

keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_resultDetails&

pub_id=2367. 

7O’Leary, Christopher J., and Kenneth J. Kline. 

2008. UI as a Safety Net for Former TANF 

Recipients. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/UI-TANF/index.htm. 

1980s, but has been maintained and 

expanded by Washington State since 

that time. Today, Washington State 

provides an alternative model for 

developing statewide longitudinal 

administrative databases of workforce 

and education information. The State 

workforce investment board (the 

Washington State Workforce Training 

and Education Coordinating Board or 

WTECB) collects and maintains the 

longitudinal State workforce data, but 

has contracted with a private, non-profit 

research organization, the Upjohn 

Institute for Employment Research, to 

conduct analysis of the longitudinal 

administrative data. 

The Upjohn Institute includes a 

number of labor economists doing 

applied research, frequently with large, 

longitudinal data sets. They have 

experience matching longitudinal data 

among States (Indiana, Georgia, 

Virginia, Washington and Ohio). By 

using a research organization, WTECB 

has been able to securely and effectively 

manage its commitment to 

accountability and performance 

monitoring. Through the Upjohn 

Institute, WTECB is able to track the 

outcomes of individuals in terms of 

achievement of workplace 

competencies, placement in 

employment, increases in levels of 

earned income, increased productivity, 

advancement out of services and overall 

satisfaction with program services and 

outcomes. In Washington State, there 

has been a focus on evaluating the 

returns on investment of the State 

workforce system in recent years. 

Aside from using a research 

institution instead of a research 

university, Washington State is also 

unique because the SWA’s high level of 

commitment to program evaluation 

through longitudinal data analysis is 

mirrored in the governor’s office. 

4. State-led Education and Workforce 

Longitudinal Data System—Florida: In 

1971, State legislation designed to spur 

improved accountability in education 

resulted in creation of the Florida 

Statewide Assessment Program. This 

program was deliberately designed to 

collect a broad array of data on 

individuals moving through the 

educational system (kindergarten 

through post-secondary, undergraduate 

levels) for the express purpose of 

assessing student strengths and 

weaknesses to assist with education 

reform efforts. In the 1980s, the focus for 

data collection expanded to include 

career and technical education data 3, 

particularly at the post-secondary level. 

Since 1991, Florida State law has 

required community colleges and State 

universities to contribute their data to 

this data collection system. 

The breadth of this data system relies 

upon a collaborative data collection and 

retention commitment from both the 

Office of Educational Accountability 

and Information Services and the 

Florida Agency for Workforce 

Innovation (FAWI). In addition to 

tracking student progress through career 

or technical education, university or 

community college, FAWI compiles 

information from workforce and social 

service programs that complements the 

education data. This information 

includes data from WIA programs, the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) program, and the State 

UI and Employment Service programs. 

Not only is Florida’s longitudinal data 

system a unique example, but it also 

shows the diversity of partnerships 

formed in the creation of this data 

system. Through the Florida Education 

and Training Placement Information 

Program (FETPIP), agencies such as the 

Florida Department of Corrections, the 

Florida Department of Education, the 

U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management, the 

U.S. Postal Service, the Florida 

Department of Management Services, 

the Florida Agency for Workforce 

Innovation, Workforce Florida and 

numerous others have benefitted from 

information sharing or analysis of 

available data. The analysis from the 

Florida workforce longitudinal database 

has resulted in a detailed performance 

measurement system that goes far 

beyond the measures required by DOL 

or ED and has allowed for in-depth 

evaluation of State labor and education 

programs. 

For more information about 

longitudinal data systems in other 

ADARE States, visit the Weblinks 

available in the first and second 

footnotes. 

F. Selected Benefits and Uses of State 

Longitudinal Data Systems 

State workforce longitudinal data 

systems can be used for a variety of 

purposes. DOL has primarily used the 

data to conduct evaluation and research. 

Most States have used these systems for 

measuring performance of workforce 

and educational programs, and 

generally to guide program operations 

and program development. Localities 

have been interested in how their school 

district or local One-Stop Career Centers 

are performing. 

• In recent years, DOL funded two 

evaluations 4 of WIA programs to 

determine the effectiveness of the 

program and its components. 

• In conjunction with welfare reform 

in the United States, DOL began 

administering grants for welfare-to-work 

programs. The ADARE alliance 

members came together to evaluate the 

welfare-to-work programs in six urban 

areas located in six of the ADARE 

States.5

• Washington State had a number of 

its State- and Federally-funded 

workforce programs evaluated by an 

outside research organization, by 

awarding this organization a contract 

and giving it access to their workforce 

longitudinal administrative data.6

• Currently, Maryland makes use of 

its longitudinal data system for a wide 

variety of purposes. A recent study 

followed the employment history of 

graduates from high schools in a single 

county, for seven years. It used UI wage 

record data from Maryland and 

surrounding States, as well as data on 

Federal civilian and military employees 

to conduct analysis. 

• In 2008, a multi-state study 7

followed the flow of TANF leavers into 

the labor force, measuring their 

employment and earnings, determining 

whether and when they became 

unemployed and whether they collected 

unemployment insurance. Further 

research has extended the analysis to 

examine whether they received 

employment services and whether these 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
27588 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 

8 King, Christopher T., Deanna Schexnayder, Greg 

Cumpton and Chandler Stolp. 2009. Education and 

Work After High School: Recent Findings from the 

Central Texas Student Future Project. Bureau of 

Business Research, IC2 Institute, the University of 

Texas at Austin. http://centexstudentfutures.org/ 

pubs/TBRAUG09.pdf. 

services assisted these individuals in 

returning to work. 

• In Texas, the Student Futures 

Project 8 has used their longitudinal 

administrative database to create a 

feedback system that has led to 

improvements in the direct-to-college 

enrollment rates from 54 percent to 62 

percent between 2004 and 2009 in 10 

participating local education districts. 

The project makes use of a number of 

secondary school administrative 

procedures (e.g., encouraging 

completion of student aid applications 

in class, taking of SATs, increasing 

assistance with post-secondary school 

applications). It assesses progress using 

an administrative database consisting of 

local education and workforce data that 

are collected and analyzed by the Ray 

Marshall Center at the University of 

Texas. 

The examples above show some of 

what can be done with State workforce 

longitudinal data systems. Many other 

uses are possible. For example, by 

developing these statewide or multistate workforce longitudinal databases 

and linking them to comparable 

education databases, DOL, the States, 

and localities could more effectively: (1) 

Determine the employment outcomes 

for students (for secondary and postsecondary students alike), (2) identify 

education exit points that maximize 

employment and earnings of former 

students, (3) analyze the cost 

effectiveness of training programs in 

terms of increased earnings for 

individuals, (4) relate employment 

outcomes to training and education 

program funding, (5) illustrate the cost 

effectiveness of providing employment 

services programs by demonstrating 

whether there is a corresponding 

reduction in payment of UI and TANF 

benefits among individuals exiting the 

WIA and Wagner-Peyser programs, and 

(6) determine the impact of education 

achieved on the incidence of 

individuals participating in the UI 

program or the TANF program. 

In the future, DOL is likely to fund 

projects focusing on program evaluation 

made possible through the development 

of these longitudinal workforce 

databases similar to the work of the 

ADARE States. As these databases are 

built, therefore, grantees should be 

prepared to address national research 

queries. 

In addition, SWAs (or their data 

analysis partner) will be expected to use 

outside data resources to improve the 

breadth and depth of State or multi-state 

workforce analysis. The following are 

examples of potentially useful data sets 

that can either be directly incorporated 

into the workforce longitudinal data 

system or used in conjunction with 

findings generated through that data 

system: 

i. Local Area Unemployment 

Statistics program (LAUS)—This is a 

Federal-State joint program providing 

monthly estimates of total employment 

and unemployment for areas including, 

census regions and divisions, States, 

some metropolitan areas, small labor 

market areas, counties and county 

equivalents and cities and towns of 

25,000 people or more. 

ii. Quarterly Census of Employment 

and Wages (QCEW) file—The Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS) collects data on 

establishments reported by UI-covered 

employers, including information on 

industry, domain (public or private), 

geographic location etc., which could 

add information on the type of 

employment held by individuals in 

addition to wage levels and duration of 

employment. The establishment level 

information in the QCEW database is 

protected by the Confidential 

Information Protection and Statistical 

Efficient Act (CIPSEA) and therefore 

may not be shared outside the 

cooperative statistical system. However, 

States have the capability of generating 

a version of this dataset that is not 

protected by CIPSEA. Further, BLS 

provides to the State cooperative 

statistical agency the linkages of 

establishments from quarter to quarter. 

Depending on State law and policy, the 

version of the establishment data not 

protected by CIPSEA and the quarter-toquarter establishment linkages may be 

provided for use in the State 

longitudinal data system. 

iii. Business Employment Dynamics 

(BED)—Is a set of statistics generated 

from the Quarterly Census of 

Employment and Wages, or ES–202, 

program. This data set is focused on 

employer data at the establishment level 

enabling BLS to track which firms are 

changing hands, ceasing to exist or 

acquiring additional resources. The BED 

file is built on the UI tax reports of each 

establishment which shows 

employment changes when companies 

form and fold. By showing quarterly 

gross job losses and gains (from 1992 

onward) these data can highlight the 

dynamic changes occurring in the job 

market at a very local level or aggregated 

up to the State level. 

iv. Mass-Layoffs Statistics program 

(MLS)—BLS uses the volume of 

unemployment claims reported by each 

establishment in the U.S. to determine 

monthly mass layoff numbers. These 

mass layoffs are charted by month and 

by quarter for regions and industries 

and can be an effective tool to show 

major job losses affecting the local or 

State workforce. 

v. Longitudinal Employer-Household 

Dynamics (LEHD)—The U.S. Census 

Bureau uses modern statistical and 

computing techniques to combine 

Federal and State administrative data on 

employers and employees with core 

Census Bureau censuses and surveys 

while protecting the confidentiality of 

people and firms that provide the data. 

The LEHD research program is centered 

on the creation and empirical analysis 

of confidential, longitudinally linked 

employer-household micro-data for 

Federal and State administrative 

purposes as well as confidential Census 

Bureau surveys and censuses. The 

LEHD’s Local Employment Dynamics 

(LED) is a voluntary partnership 

between State labor market information 

agencies and the U.S. Census Bureau. 

LED uses State UI Quarterly Census of 

Employment and Wage data micro-data 

provided by States. In many of the 47 

participating States, longitudinal data 

reaches back nearly 20 years. The LED 

Internet-based tools include GIS 

mapping and localized workforce and 

industry reports. 

vi. Registered Apprenticeship (RA) 

Program Data—An additional source of 

data on individuals who may not be 

represented in other workforce 

programs or in the education system is 

through the RA program. Applicants 

which may include data from RA 

programs should note that the DOL 

Office of Apprenticeship is the 

registration agency for RA programs in 

25 States and the data for RA programs 

in these States are maintained in DOL’s 

Registered Apprenticeship Partners 

Information Data System (RAPIDS). In 

the other 25 States, the District of 

Columbia, and U.S. Territories, the 

registration agency is a State 

Apprenticeship Agency (SAA) 

recognized by DOL that has 

responsibility for registering 

apprenticeship programs and 

maintaining apprenticeship data. In 

cases where successful applicants 

propose to include apprenticeship data 

that are maintained in DOL’s RAPIDS, a 

MOU, letter of intent, data-sharing 

agreement, or other supporting materials 

legally binding the use of RAPIDS, are 

not required. DOL will work with these 

grantees to provide access to 

apprenticeship data. Applicants should 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 27589 

visit the DOL Office of Apprenticeship’s 

Web site (http://www.doleta.gov/oa/ 

stateoffices.cfm and http:// 

www.doleta.gov/oa/stateagencies.cfm) 

to identify the Registration Agency 

appropriate for their State. 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

This initiative will support 

development of these longitudinal 

databases over a three-year grant period. 

Applicants will be expected to clearly 

demonstrate their plans to build or 

expand these databases, store and use 

the data in adherence to all applicable 

confidentiality laws and to identify 

what types of analysis they will conduct 

with their data while protecting 

individual privacy for all data collected. 

A. Preparing to Apply for this 

Solicitation: The following are 

important considerations for the 

development of State Workforce 

Longitudinal Administrative Data 

Systems (for more details, please see 

Section V further in this SGA). 

1. Determining Capacity 

In order for applicants for WDQI 

grants to submit plans to develop and 

fully implement workforce longitudinal 

data systems, they will have to identify 

their existing stage of development. 

Expectations for grantees will differ 

depending on their launch point, which 

will fall into one of three categories: 

i. States without workforce 

longitudinal data systems are expected 

to: (1) Develop and fully implement 

their systems, (2) enable their new 

workforce systems to be linked to 

existing education longitudinal data 

systems, and (3) begin conducting basic 

analysis and research with their 

completed systems within the three-year 

grant period. 

ii. States with partial systems are 

expected to: (1) Fully implement their 

systems, (2) enable linkages to existing 

education longitudinal data systems, 

and (3) conduct significant analysis and 

research with their completed systems 

that will be accessible to policymakers 

and practitioners. 

iii. States with comprehensive 

workforce longitudinal systems are 

expected to: (1) Expand and extend their 

systems, (2) improve linkages with 

educational systems, (3) complete and 

publicize extensive longitudinal 

analysis and research with their 

systems, including developing 

prototype models of analysis that can be 

useful to other less advanced States, and 

(4) develop user-friendly platforms to 

show consumers performance data and 

analytical reports about education and 

workforce service providers. 

2. Collection of Longitudinal Workforce 

Data 

Applicants will be expected to 

explain the scope of the longitudinal 

data system which will be funded by 

this grant. Applicants will be asked to 

describe which programs will be 

included in the data system. At a 

minimum, the data systems should 

include disaggregated individual record 

data for the following programs: (1) WIA 

Title I, (2) Wagner-Peyser Act, (3) Trade 

Adjustment Assistance program data, (4) 

UI wage record data, (5) UI benefit data 

including demographic information 

associated with UI benefit payments, 

and (6) linkages to existing State 

education agency longitudinal data. 

Applicants are also encouraged to 

include data from other workforce 

programs such as Vocational 

Rehabilitation or RA programs. States 

will need to describe any State 

legislative barriers that impede the 

linking of data sources and address how 

such impediments will be overcome. It 

will also be incumbent upon SWA 

applicants to determine the source of all 

planned workforce data used to build 

the workforce longitudinal databases. 

This is particularly relevant in the case 

of the RA program as DOL is the 

registration agency and collects and 

houses the data for many of the State’s 

RA programs. 

Applicants should specify the 

planned data files—data records, 

elements, and fields—that will be 

contained in their workforce 

longitudinal data systems. Applicants 

should provide a detailed plan for 

designing, developing, storing and using 

the data as well as describe ongoing 

data-sharing and data storage 

procedures for both security and data 

quality purposes. 

Applicants must also describe what 

procedures will be implemented to 

assure high standards of data quality as 

well as the protection of individual 

privacy. WDQI grantees are expected to 

be a focal point for data quality 

assurance and must therefore indicate 

what steps they will take to assure that 

workforce data and data received from 

partner agencies meets rigorous data 

quality standards. 

3. Partnerships Among Agencies Within 

the State 

Applicants will be expected to 

indicate which organizations will 

participate in the WDQI along with their 

authority and willingness to provide 

regular access to their data and to take 

an active role. Workforce data may be 

supplied by organizations within the 

SWA as well as from outside 

organizations. For example, UI wage 

records are kept by the State revenue 

agency in some States. The WIA 

program is also located outside the 

SWAs in some States. At a minimum, 

partnerships must be made with State 

education agencies, but cooperation is 

also encouraged with other State 

agencies, such as Vocational 

Rehabilitation or Apprenticeship 

agencies (in applicable States). 

Applicants should be prepared to 

describe potential legal or other barriers 

to data-sharing among partner agencies 

along with the strategies to overcome 

such barriers. Applicants should 

provide information about the firmness 

of the commitment of the partners in 

their efforts to assemble data. 

Commitments should be 

demonstrated by submitting 

descriptions or evidence of planned or 

existing memoranda of understanding 

(MOU), letters of intent from partners, 

data-sharing agreements, or other 

supporting materials including legally 

binding agreements with partners. 

4. Working With a Research Partner 

The success of most ADARE States 

and other States (e.g., Kentucky, New 

Jersey and Wisconsin) which have 

worked with a State research university 

for building, maintaining and using 

their workforce longitudinal data 

systems offers an approach that States 

may use. However, alternative 

approaches that would maintain 

confidentiality and result in highquality data systems will be considered 

for funding as well. 

Legislation in many States does not 

support data-sharing between the State 

workforce and education agencies. As a 

result, for some SWAs, an alternative 

data storing and/or data analysis 

intermediary may be necessary. Private 

and non-profit organizations with the 

capacity to safely house and manipulate 

large data sets in accordance with State 

and Federal confidentiality provisions 

could serve as partners. Many State 

research universities have the capacity 

to carry out the building of longitudinal 

administrative databases and are 

situated advantageously throughout the 

country and partnerships with a State 

research university are a proven model 

(please refer to Section B. above for 

further information). 

When working with a State research 

university, applicants should investigate 

the additional security measures that 

may be expected by the Institutional 

Review Board (IRB) of that university. 

The IRB will have to give approval for 

the State research institution’s 

involvement in this partnership that is 

based on its satisfaction that the plan for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
27590 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 

confidential transfer, storage and usage 

of data is sound. 

Alternative models will be considered 

under the WDQI grant programs and it 

will be critical that the following 

considerations are incorporated into any 

partnership model. 

i. The research partner chosen by the 

SWA must have demonstrable capacity 

to assist in the collection and storage of 

the longitudinal workforce data. 

ii. This research partner entity must 

be able to ensure that the data collected 

will be stored in accordance to local, 

State and Federal confidentiality 

provisions. 

iii. This research partner will be 

responsible for processing data requests, 

conducting in-depth data analysis, 

preparing standard reports, responding 

to requests for additional papers and 

reporting on State and local workforce 

and education issues and trends as 

requested by external entities. It is 

expected, therefore, that the institution 

partnering with the SWA will have the 

capacity to fulfill these responsibilities. 

5. Confidentiality 

Applicants must describe the methods 

and procedures (e.g. through 

demonstrating existence of or plans to 

develop MOUs, letters of intent, and 

data-sharing agreements) for assuring 

the security and confidentiality of 

collection, storage and use of all data 

contained in the workforce longitudinal 

data system. Methods must describe 

how confidentiality in research, 

evaluation and performance 

management will be maintained. The 

responsibilities of the SWA and its 

partners should be enumerated and 

explained. Procedures for ensuring 

compliance with the State and Federal 

privacy and confidentiality statutes and 

regulations should be discussed, 

especially regarding the actual 

collection of data, data transmission, 

and the maintenance of computerized 

data files. Applicants should describe 

confidentiality procedures that will be 

used to protect personally identifiable 

information, including requirements for 

the reporting and publication of data. 

Applicants should describe under what 

circumstances the data will be made 

available, to whom and to what level of 

specificity in accordance with 

confidentiality laws. 

The applicant should also include 

within their description of key types of 

personnel (see Section V.A.5 further in 

this SGA) reference to the level of 

confidentiality or access to data to 

which those employees will be held 

based on their employment status. For 

example, generally employees of State 

research universities are State 

employees, are therefore agents of the 

State workforce or education agencies 

and are granted access to or restricted 

from sensitive data based upon State 

laws. In addition, they are expected to 

observe rules set by the State 

university’s IRB. It can be assumed, for 

the purpose of this application, that all 

proposed employees will be subject to 

Federal laws governing data-sharing, 

transfer of data and confidentiality. 

6. Data-Sharing Agreements 

It is to be expected that grantees in 

this initiative will have partnership 

agreements outlining the storage, use 

and ongoing maintenance of the 

longitudinal databases. These datasharing agreements must address: How 

data will be exchanged between 

partners, the purposes for which the 

data will be used, how and when the 

data will be disseminated, which entity 

maintains control of the data, which 

entity actually owns the data, the 

intended methods of ensuring 

confidential collection, use and storage 

of the data, and which entities inside 

and outside of the data-sharing 

agreements will have access to the data. 

Data-sharing agreements should contain 

specific plans for secure data transfer 

and storage. 

It may also be advantageous for 

grantees to develop data-sharing 

agreements with DOL to obtain 

individual level data for various 

programs for which the DOL is the data 

administrator. DOL encourages the 

production of full or limited scope 

public use data files that will be hosted 

by the SWA or an agreed upon 

designated host. 

7. Integration of Efforts With State 

Education Agencies 

SWAs are expected to assemble (or 

plan to assemble) and use longitudinal 

administrative data beyond only 

workforce data. It is important to 

connect workforce and education data 

to analyze individuals’ receipt of both 

education and training services and to 

determine ways to maximize the 

outcomes of these services. 

i. DOL encourages all SWAs which 

apply for WDQI grants to take their 

workforce longitudinal administrative 

database in whatever stage it may be in, 

develop it fully, and then enable the 

data to be matched with similar 

longitudinal education databases. 

ii. SWAs with longitudinal 

administrative databases are encouraged 

to develop new approaches to link these 

databases with education entities 

collecting comparable education data as 

well as with other State agencies. 

iii. SWAs which will be proposing to 

have their State workforce longitudinal 

data systems operated by a State 

university should assure that the State 

university staff will work closely with 

the State education agency as well as 

the SWA. 

It is important to note that many of 

the statewide educational data systems 

supported by the ED are also in a State 

of development. On the education side 

there may be no longitudinal data 

systems in place, in which case, 

qualifying grantees would have to plan 

to link to available non-longitudinal 

education data, for example, individuallevel post-secondary education data. If a 

State’s education agency has a partially 

or fully developed statewide 

longitudinal education data system, it 

will be the responsibility of the 

workforce grantee to work with that 

agency to link the education and the 

workforce data. This is one example of 

the partnership that is expected between 

State workforce and education agencies 

in developing these linked longitudinal 

data systems. 

Applicants must provide a 

description of the status of the 

development of the statewide 

longitudinal education data system in 

their State (e.g., nothing in place, 

statewide longitudinal data system 

planned but not yet implemented, 

longitudinal data system partially 

developed or fully developed) but they 

will not be penalized for planning to 

incorporate education data which are 

not yet gathered longitudinally. 

For those States where the education 

statewide longitudinal data system is 

incipient or undeveloped, DOL 

understands that it will take time to link 

education data into the State workforce 

longitudinal database in order to 

contribute to longitudinal analysis. The 

expectation is that these grantees will 

use these education data for analysis as 

soon as they have sufficient periods of 

longitudinal education data matched to 

the workforce data. 

B. Multi-State Partnerships: 

Collaborative approaches will result in 

more complete data sets and efficient 

use of resources. DOL encourages States 

to partner in submitting applications 

and work together on developing 

workforce longitudinal databases. 

Applicants should explain their role 

relative to State partners in the ‘‘Plan 

Outline’’ and ‘‘Description of 

Partnership Strategies’’ sections of their 

application. Collaborations among or 

between States may take three forms: 

i. Multi-state data systems: This is the 

most collaborative approach and may be 

the most efficient, because it allows 

States to share technology and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 27591 

administrative resources. More than one 

State would contribute raw data into a 

merged matching system, maintained by 

the lead administrative agent, creating a 

multi-state workforce longitudinal data 

system. DOL strongly encourages this 

approach. The following points may be 

helpful in considering how to structure 

multi-state workforce longitudinal 

administrative databases: 

• Look to States in close proximity 

whose educational capacity is robust 

(particularly in the case of a major State 

research university) in order to make 

assessments on which entities will be 

approached for a proposed partnership. 

• Show figures on the interstate flow 

of residents through education 

pathways and beyond to demonstrate 

the usefulness of developing multi-state 

longitudinal databases. 

• Outline the contribution of data and 

resources of the grant-seeking State to 

the multi-state longitudinal database 

system as it is developing or its 

contribution to a system already in 

existence. 

• Anticipate what the role of this 

SWA will be in joining a collaborative 

that is either already in progress or 

getting underway. 

ii. Individual State data systems 

operated by a single entity: States may 

not have the capacity to develop a 

workforce longitudinal data system on 

their own. They may lack appropriate 

staff at the SWA, State universities or 

other institutions to carry out this 

complex process. These States can still 

develop data systems through 

partnerships with a State education 

agency with sufficient capacity or with 

workforce agencies and/or research 

universities in other States. In such 

cases, two or more States would develop 

separate workforce longitudinal data 

systems at one SWA or research entity. 

iii. Coordinated data-sharing and 

analysis: There are many urban labor 

markets that span State lines, presenting 

opportunities for innovative models in 

this initiative. States may choose to 

work alone in developing a longitudinal 

database, and yet still partner with 

agencies across State lines to share data 

for expanded analysis. In this case, 

applicants must demonstrate how they 

will ensure that the confidentiality 

provisions of each State will be adhered 

to. 

II. Award Information 

A. Award Amount 

Approximately $12.2 million is 

available for awards under this 

solicitation. DOL reserves the right to 

award varying grant amounts depending 

on the quality of the applications 

received, the scope of the proposed 

activities, and the feasibility of the 

budget projections contained in the 

application; and also reserves the right 

to award additional grants depending on 

the availability of additional funds. 

Grant awards may be up to $1 million 

but must not exceed $1 million per 

grant for any single-state grantee. Grant 

awards may be up to $3 million per 

grant under a multi-state consortium 

model but are not to exceed $3 million. 

Applications requesting funds 

exceeding the amounts specified above 

will be found non-responsive and will 

not be considered. 

B. Period of Performance 

The period of grant performance will 

be up to 36 months from the date of 

execution of the grant documents. This 

performance period includes all 

necessary implementation and start-up 

activities. Applicants should plan to 

fully expend grant funds and submit all 

reports during the period of 

performance, while ensuring full 

transparency and accountability for all 

expenditures. Grants may be extended 

at no additional cost to the government 

with adequate justification and approval 

by the grant officer. 

III. Eligibility Information 

A. Eligible Applicants 

Eligible applicants are all SWAs. 

These SWAs include those within the 

50 States, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

SWAs can apply for their individual 

State or they can work cooperatively 

with one or more SWAs in other States 

in a multi-state consortium or through a 

multi-state data-sharing agreement. 

B. Cost Sharing 

Cost sharing or matching funds are 

not required as a condition for 

application, but applicants should note 

that their plan for WDQI sustainability 

will be taken into account in the scoring 

under Section V.A.2 further in this SGA. 

IV. Application and Submission 

Information 

A. How to Obtain an Application 

Package 

This SGA contains all of the 

information and links to forms needed 

to apply for grant funding. 

B. Content and Form of Application 

Submission 

The proposal will consist of three 

separate and distinct parts—(I) a cost 

proposal, (II) a technical proposal, and 

(III) attachments to the technical 

proposal. Applications that fail to 

adhere to the instructions in this section 

will be considered non-responsive and 

will not be considered. Please note that 

it is the applicant’s responsibility to 

ensure that the funding amount 

requested is consistent across all parts 

and sub-parts of the application. 

Part I. The Cost Proposal. The Cost 

Proposal must include the following 

four items: 

• The Standard Form (SF)–424, 

‘‘Application for Federal Assistance’’ 

(available at http://www07.grants.gov/ 

agencies/forms_repository_

information.jsp and http://www.

doleta.gov/grants/find_grants.cfm). The 

SF–424 must clearly identify the 

applicant and be signed by an 

individual with authority to enter into 

a grant agreement. Upon confirmation of 

an award, the individual signing the 

SF–424 on behalf of the applicant shall 

be considered the authorized 

representative of the applicant. 

• Applicants must supply their 

D–U–N–S® Number on the SF–424. All 

applicants for Federal grant and funding 

opportunities are required to have a 

Data Universal Numbering System 

(D–U–N–S® Number). See Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Notice 

of Final Policy Issuance, 68 FR 38402, 

Jun. 27, 2003. The D–U–N–S® Number 

is a non-indicative, nine-digit number 

assigned to each business location in the 

Duns & Bradstreet database having a 

unique, separate, and distinct operation, 

and is maintained solely by D–U–N–S®

Number. The D–U–N–S® Number is 

used by industries and organizations 

around the world as a global standard 

for business identification and tracking. 

If you do not have a D–U–N–S®

Number, you can get one for free 

through the Small Business Solutions 

site: http://smallbusiness.dnb.com/

webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Glossary

?fLink=glossary&footerflag=y

&storeId=10001&indicator=7. 

• The SF–424A Budget Information 

Form (available at http://www07.grants.

gov/agencies/forms_repository_

information.jsp and http:// 

www.doleta.gov/grants/ 

find_grants.cfm). In preparing the 

Budget Information Form, the applicant 

must provide a concise narrative 

explanation to support the request, 

explained in detail below. 

• Budget Narrative: The budget 

narrative must provide a description of 

costs associated with each line item on 

the SF–424A. It should also include 

leveraged resources provided to support 

grant activities. In addition, the 

applicant should address precisely how 

the administrative costs support the 

project goals. The entire Federal grant 

amount requested should be included 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
27592 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 

on both the SF–424 and SF–424A (not 

just one year). No leveraged resources 

should be shown on the SF–424 and 

SF–424A. Please note that applicants 

that fail to provide a SF–424, SF–424A, 

a D–U–N–S® Number, and a budget 

narrative will be removed from 

consideration prior to the technical 

review process. 

• Applicants are also encouraged, but 

not required, to submit OMB Survey N. 

1890–0014: Survey on Ensuring Equal 

Opportunity for Applicants, which can 

be found under the Grants.gov, Tips and 

Resources From Grantors, Department of 

Labor section at http://www07.grants.

gov/applicants/tips_resources_from_

grantors.jsp#13 (also referred to as Faith 

Based EEO Survey PDF Form). 

Part II. The Technical Proposal. The 

applicant will present the State’s overall 

strategy for building workforce 

longitudinal databases with the capacity 

to link to longitudinal education 

databases and consists of six parts: (1) 

Statement of Current Longitudinal 

Database Capacity, (2) Plan Outline, (3) 

Description of Partnership Strategies, (4) 

Description of Database Design, Data 

Quality Assurance and Proposed Uses, 

(5) Staffing Capacity, and (6) Bonus 

Points—Other Data Linkages. 

Applicants will be evaluated on the 

completeness and quality of their 

submissions. A description of the 

criteria that will be used to evaluate 

each submission and points awarded are 

outlined in Section V of this SGA. 

The Technical Proposal is limited to 

30 double-spaced single-sided pages 

with 12 point text font and 1 inch 

margins. Any materials beyond these 

page limits will not be read. Applicants 

should number the Technical Proposal 

beginning with page number 1. 

Applicants that do not provide Part II, 

the Technical Proposal of the 

application will be removed from 

consideration prior to the technical 

review process. 

Part III. Attachments to the Technical 

Proposal. In addition to the 30-page 

Technical Proposal, the applicant must 

submit an Abstract, not to exceed one 

page, summarizing the proposed project 

including applicant name, project title, 

a description of the area to be served, 

and the funding level requested. 

Consortium applications must also 

clearly specify the lead State, which is 

the State serving as the fiscal agent and 

as the administrative lead and identify 

each State that is participating in the 

project. 

The applicant may supply evidence or 

descriptions of planned or existing 

MOUs, Letters of Intent or other 

statements attesting to the formation of 

data-sharing partnerships as 

attachments to the Technical Proposal. 

Detailed descriptions/qualifications for 

proposed staff positions to be included 

in the development of these workforce 

longitudinal databases may also be 

included as an attachment. Attachments 

may not exceed 35 pages Any materials 

beyond this page limit will not be read. 

C. Submission Process, Date, Times, and 

Addresses 

The closing date for receipt of 

applications under this announcement 

is August 16, 2010. Applications must 

be received at the address below no later 

than 4 p.m. (Eastern Time). 

Applications sent by e-mail, telegram, or 

facsimile (FAX) will not be accepted. 

Applications that do not meet the 

conditions set forth in this notice will 

not be honored. No exceptions to the 

mailing and delivery requirements set 

forth in this notice will be granted. 

Mailed applications must be addressed 

to the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, Division of Federal 

Assistance, Attention: Willie E. Harris, 

Grant Officer, Reference SGA/DFA, PY 

09–10, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room N4716, Washington, DC 20210. 

Applicants are advised that mail 

delivery in the Washington area may be 

delayed due to mail decontamination 

procedures. Hand-delivered proposals 

will be received at the above address. 

All professional overnight delivery 

service will be considered to be handdelivered and must be received at the 

designated place by the specified 

closing date and time. 

Applicants may apply online through 

Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov); 

however, due to the expected increase 

in system activity applicants are 

encouraged to use an alternate method 

to submit grant applications during this 

heightened period of demand. While not 

mandatory, DOL encourages the 

submission of applications through 

professional overnight delivery service. 

Applications that are submitted 

through Grants.gov must be successfully 

submitted at http://www.grants.gov no 

later than 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the 

closing date, and then subsequently 

validated by Grants.gov. The submission 

and validation process is described in 

more detail below. The process can be 

complicated and time-consuming. 

Applicants are strongly advised to 

initiate the process as soon as possible 

and to plan for time to resolve technical 

problems if necessary. 

It is strongly recommended that 

before the applicant begins to write the 

proposal, applicants should 

immediately initiate and complete the 

‘‘Get Registered’’ registration steps at 

http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_

registered.jsp. These steps may take 

multiple days or weeks to complete, and 

this time should be factored into plans 

for electronic submission in order to 

avoid unexpected delays that could 

result in the rejection of an application. 

It is highly recommended that 

applicants use the ‘‘Organization 

Registration Checklist’’ at http://

www.grants.gov/assets/Organization_

Steps_Complete_Registration.pdf to 

ensure the registration process is 

complete. 

Within two business days of 

application submission, Grants.gov will 

send the applicant two e-mail messages 

to provide the status of application 

progress through the system. The first 

e-mail, almost immediate, will confirm 

receipt of the application by Grants.gov. 

The second e-mail will indicate whether 

the application has been successfully 

validated or has been rejected due to 

errors. Only applications that have been 

successfully submitted by the deadline 

and subsequently successfully validated 

will be considered. While it is not 

required that an application be 

successfully validated before the 

deadline for submission, it is prudent to 

reserve time before the deadline in case 

it is necessary to resubmit an 

application that has not been 

successfully validated. Therefore, 

sufficient time should be allotted for 

submission (two business days), and if 

applicable, subsequent time to address 

errors and receive validation upon 

resubmission (an additional two 

business days for each ensuing 

submission). It is important to note that 

if sufficient time is not allotted and a 

rejection notice is received after the due 

date and time, the application will not 

be considered. 

To ensure consideration, the 

components of the application must be 

saved as either .doc, .xls or .pdf files. If 

submitted in any other format, the 

applicant bears the risk that 

compatibility or other issues will 

prevent us from considering the 

application. DOL will attempt to open 

the document but will not take any 

additional measures in the event of 

problems with opening. In such cases, 

the non-conforming application will not 

be considered for funding. 

Applicants are strongly advised to use 

the tools and documents, including 

FAQs, available on the ‘‘Applicant 

Resources’’ page at http://www.grants.

gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp#faqs. 

To receive updated information about 

critical issues, new tips for users and 

other time sensitive updates as 

information is available, applicants may 

subscribe to Grants.gov Updates at: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 27593 

http://www.grants.gov/applicants/ 

email_subscription_signup.jsp. 

If applicants encounter a problem 

with Grants.gov and do not find an 

answer in any of the other resources, 

call 1–800–518–4726 to speak to a 

Customer Support Representative or 

e-mail support@grants.gov. 

Late Applications: For applications 

submitted on Grants.gov, only 

applications that have been successfully 

submitted no later than 4 p.m. (Eastern 

Time) on the closing date and 

subsequently successfully validated will 

be considered. 

Any application received after the 

exact date and time specified for receipt 

at the office designated in this notice 

will not be considered, unless it is 

received before awards are made, it was 

properly addressed, and it was: (a) Sent 

by U.S. Postal Service mail, postmarked 

not later than the fifth calendar day 

before the date specified for receipt of 

applications (e.g., an application 

required to be received by the 20th of 

the month must be postmarked by the 

15th of that month), or (b) sent by 

professional overnight delivery service 

to the addressee not later than one 

working day before the date specified 

for receipt of applications. Applicants 

take a significant risk by waiting to the 

last day to submit by grants.gov. 

‘‘Postmarked’’ means a printed, stamped 

or otherwise placed impression 

(exclusive of a postage meter machine 

impression) that is readily identifiable, 

without further action, as having been 

supplied or affixed on the date of 

mailing by an employee of the U.S. 

Postal Service. Therefore, applicants 

should request the postal clerk to place 

a legible hand cancellation ‘‘bull’s eye’’ 

postmark on both the receipt and the 

package. Failure to adhere to the above 

instructions will be a basis for a 

determination of non-responsiveness. 

Evidence of timely submission by a 

professional overnight delivery service 

must be demonstrated by equally 

reliable evidence created by the 

professional overnight delivery service 

provider indicating the time and place 

of receipt. 

D. Intergovernmental Review 

This funding opportunity is not 

subject to Executive Order 12372, 

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs.’’ 

E. Funding Restrictions 

Determinations of allowable costs will 

be made in accordance with the 

applicable Federal cost principles. 

Disallowed costs are those charges to a 

grant that the grantor agency or its 

representative determines not to be 

allowed in accordance with the 

applicable Federal cost principles or 

other conditions contained in the grant. 

Successful and unsuccessful applicants 

will not be entitled to reimbursement of 

pre-award costs. 

1. Indirect Costs 

As specified in OMB Circular Cost 

Principles, indirect costs are those that 

have been incurred for common or joint 

objectives and cannot be readily 

identified with a particular final cost 

objective. In order to use grant funds for 

indirect costs incurred, the applicant 

must obtain an Indirect Cost Rate 

Agreement with its Federal cognizant 

agency either before or shortly after 

grant award. State agencies should 

already have such agreements in place. 

2. Administrative Costs 

Under this SGA, an entity that 

receives a grant to carry out a project or 

program may not use more than 10 

percent of the amount of the grant to 

pay administrative costs associated with 

the program or project. Administrative 

costs could be direct or indirect costs, 

and are defined at 20 CFR 667.220. 

Administrative costs do not need to be 

identified separately from program costs 

on the SF–424A Budget Information 

Form. They should be discussed in the 

budget narrative and tracked through 

the grantee’s accounting system. To 

claim any administrative costs that are 

also indirect costs, the applicant must 

obtain an Indirect Cost Rate agreement 

from its Federal cognizant agency. 

3. Salary and Bonus Limitations 

Under Public Law 109–234, none of 

the funds appropriated in Public Law 

109–149, or prior Acts under the 

heading ‘‘Employment and Training’’ 

that are available for expenditure on or 

after June 15, 2006, may be used by a 

recipient or sub-recipient of such funds 

to pay the salary and bonuses of an 

individual, either as direct costs or 

indirect costs, at a rate in excess of 

Executive Level II. Public Laws 111–8 

and 111–117 contain the same 

limitations with respect to funds 

appropriated under each of those Laws. 

These limitations also apply to grants 

funded under this SGA. The salary and 

bonus limitation does not apply to 

vendors providing goods and services as 

defined in OMB Circular A–133 

(codified at 29 CFR parts 96 and 99). See 

Training and Employment Guidance 

Letter number 5–06 for further 

clarification: http://wdr.doleta.gov/ 

directives/corr_doc.cfm?DCON=2262. 

4. Intellectual Property Rights 

The Federal Government reserves a 

paid-up, nonexclusive and irrevocable 

license to reproduce, publish or 

otherwise use, and to authorize others to 

use for Federal purposes: (1) The 

copyright in all products developed 

under the grant, including a subgrant or 

contract under the grant or subgrant; 

and (2) any rights of copyright to which 

the grantee, subgrantee or a contractor 

purchases ownership under an award 

(including but not limited to curricula, 

training models, technical assistance 

products, and any related materials). 

Such uses include, but are not limited 

to, the right to modify and distribute 

such products worldwide by any means, 

electronically or otherwise. Federal 

funds may not be used to pay any 

royalty or licensing fee associated with 

such copyrighted material, although 

they may be used to pay costs for 

obtaining a copy which are limited to 

the developer/seller costs of copying 

and shipping. If revenues are generated 

through selling products developed 

with grant funds, including intellectual 

property, these revenues are program 

income. Program income is added to the 

grant and must be expended for 

allowable grant activities. 

If applicable, the following statement 

must be included on all products 

developed in whole or in part with grant 

funds: 

‘‘This workforce solution was funded 

by a grant awarded by the U.S. 

Department of Labor’s Employment and 

Training Administration. The solution 

was created by the grantee and does not 

necessarily reflect the official position 

of the U.S. Department of Labor. The 

Department of Labor makes no 

guarantees, warranties, or assurances of 

any kind, express or implied, with 

respect to such information, including 

any information on linked sites and 

including, but not limited to, accuracy 

of the information or its completeness, 

timeliness, usefulness, adequacy, 

continued availability, or ownership. 

This solution is copyrighted by the 

institution that created it. Internal use 

by an organization and/or personal use 

by an individual for non-commercial 

purposes is permissible. All other uses 

require the prior authorization of the 

copyright owner.’’ 

F. Other Submission Requirements 

Withdrawal of Applications: 

Applications may be withdrawn by 

written notice at any time before an 

award is made. 

V. Application Review Information 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
27594 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 

Criterion Points 

1. Statement of Current Capacity ............................................................................................................................................................ 10 

2. Plan Outline ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 

3. Description of Partnership Strategies .................................................................................................................................................. 30 

4. Description of Database Design, Data Quality Assurance and Proposed Uses ................................................................................ 35 

5. Staffing Capacity ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 

6. Bonus Points—Other Data Linkages .................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Total Possible Points ........................................................................................................................................................................ 103 

A. Evaluation Criteria 

This section identifies required 

application elements that will be used 

to evaluate proposals for the WDQI 

grants. The application requirements 

and maximum point values are 

described below. Please refer back to 

Section I.A of this SGA for more 

information on the components of the 

application requirements listed below. 

Please keep in mind that the 

Attachments to the Technical proposal 

may serve as space to include additional 

details on components such as the 

planned or existing MOUs, data-sharing 

agreements, letters of intent or job 

descriptions of key staff positions, 

however, a brief description of such 

must be included in the relevant 

sections below. 

1. Statement of Current Capacity 

(10 Points) 

Applicants must submit a Statement 

of Capacity (for more information, 

please refer back to Section I.1) that 

clearly outlines the applicant’s launch 

point, which is the extent to which the 

SWA (or the lead research/data-sharing 

entity) has developed or plans to 

develop data-sharing partnerships, 

established or plans to establish 

longitudinal linkages among the 

different data sources, and produced or 

plans to produce useful analysis based 

on linked data. Proposals from 

applicants with new or partially 

developed data systems will be 

evaluated based on the thoroughness of 

their descriptions of the potential 

capacity existing in their States to create 

a longitudinal workforce data system 

based on the factors below. Applicants 

with planned or partially developed 

workforce longitudinal databases are 

encouraged to use this section to discuss 

the opportunities that exist in their State 

for formation of the longitudinal 

database. Scoring for this criterion will 

be based on the applicant’s ability to 

clearly demonstrate the following: 

i. The capacity for maintaining secure 

data storage, including any partnerships 

that have or will be established between 

the SWA and another entity capable of 

maintaining secure data storage, such as 

a research entity (State university or 

otherwise). Partnerships are 

demonstrable through MOUs, datasharing agreements or other legally 

binding contracts. Descriptions of 

existing agreements or plans to enter 

into agreements may be submitted as an 

attachment to the application, subject to 

the page limitations stated in Section 

IV.B of this SGA. 

ii. Any planned or established 

partnerships between the SWA and the 

State education agency that are 

demonstrable through planned or 

existing MOUs, data-sharing agreements 

or other legally binding contracts. 

Descriptions of these may be submitted 

as an attachment to the application, 

subject to the page limitations stated in 

Section IV.B of this SGA. Applicants 

with new or partially developed 

longitudinal workforce databases should 

provide a detailed description of the 

steps they plan to take to develop these 

partnerships. 

iii. Any existing or planned data 

linkages for data sets such as (but not 

limited to) wage record data, 

employment and training services data, 

UI benefits data, TANF data, WIA, 

Wagner-Peyser and Trade Adjustment 

Assistance program data. 

iv. The extent to which the existing or 

proposed data-sharing partnerships 

have yielded or will yield statistical 

analysis and/or reporting on the State 

workforce system to inform stakeholders 

such as employment services customers, 

educators, policy makers, service 

providers and elected officials. 

Applicants with new or partially 

developed longitudinal workforce 

databases may also describe the need to 

have such data available for research 

and analysis. 

v. Any partnerships with agencies in 

neighboring States which have come 

about through a commitment to share 

data in an effort to gather information 

on individuals traveling over State lines 

in pursuit of education or employment. 

Partnerships are demonstrable through 

MOUs, data-sharing agreements, or 

other legally binding contracts. 

Applicants with new or partially 

developed longitudinal workforce 

databases should provide a detailed 

description of the steps they plan to take 

to develop these partnerships. 

Descriptions of these planned or 

existing agreements may be submitted 

as an attachment to the application, 

subject to the page limitation stated in 

Section IV.B of this SGA. 

Responses to the criteria in this 

section establish the baseline status of 

each applicant. A thorough statement 

will give the applicant as well as the 

grant reviewers valuable insight into the 

true scope of the project design. 

2. Plan Outline (15 Points) 

Once an assessment of capacity is 

complete, it will be possible to make a 

plan for expanding or improving 

workforce longitudinal databases. It is 

important that the applicant integrate 

information about the current status of 

any existing longitudinal workforce 

database with the plan to proceed 

forward under this grant opportunity. 

For this section applicants should 

provide a complete, but brief overview 

since many of the same requirements 

listed below will be expanded upon in 

Sections V.A.3 through V.A.6. Scoring 

of this section will be based on of the 

ability of the applicant demonstrate a 

sound structural plan. The plan outline 

must: 

i. Describe the State’s objectives for 

creating or upgrading and using its 

workforce longitudinal data system and 

explain how the State plans to achieve 

these objectives. The appropriateness of 

the objectives and plans will be judged 

relative to the State’s current data 

system capacity. Depending on the 

State’s launch point, objectives should 

include a description of the plans for: 

• Creating or expanding workforce 

longitudinal databases. 

• Improving the quality of workforce 

data. 

• Developing or expanding the 

capacity to match workforce and 

education data. 

• Using data for analysis that will 

help policymakers and practitioners 

understand the performance of 

workforce and education programs. 

• For applicants with a partially or 

fully developed workforce longitudinal 

database, creating user-friendly portals 

to publicize the data in ways that help 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 27595 

consumers choose between different 

education and training programs. 

ii. Describe the status of the statewide 

longitudinal education data system in 

their State. Applicants will have to work 

with the State education agency to 

determine whether that State has begun 

to plan for their SLDS, has a partially 

developed or fully implemented SLDS 

program. The application should 

include a description of the SLDS plan 

and which sets of education data are 

part of the SLDS. If neither of these 

exist, the applicant must be prepared to 

indicate what education data sets 

(consistent with the requirements of 

Section V.A.4 in the SGA) they will 

incorporate into their workforce 

longitudinal data system until the State 

education agency is able to generate 

longitudinal education data to match 

with. (For basic information on the 

SLDS, see the following ED Web site: 

http://nces.ed.gov/Programs/SLDS/ and 

the following Data Quality Campaign 

Web site: http:// 

www.dataqualitycampaign.org/.) 

iii. Specify whether the State is 

applying alone or as a member of a 

multi-state consortium or whether it 

plans to develop joint data-sharing or 

cooperative data analysis agreements 

with neighboring States. 

• If applicants will be working with 

another State(s) to develop their 

workforce longitudinal database, the 

application must include: (1) Which 

States are part of the collaboration, 

(2) which State will take the lead role 

in developing the workforce 

longitudinal databases and which 

State(s) will be providing their 

workforce data, (3) how confidentiality 

will be protected in the case of multiple 

States in accordance with each State’s 

confidentiality regulations, and (4) brief 

descriptions of any planned or existing 

legally binding agreements (e.g., MOUs, 

data-sharing agreements) between/ 

among the partner States which ensure 

that each State is aware of its role and 

the expectations of workload in the 

event that a grant is awarded. 

• If applicants will be planning on 

sharing and/or using another State’s 

longitudinal data to produce analysis on 

a shared labor market, the following 

must be included in the application: 

(1) A list of the State(s) involved in the 

data-sharing partnership, (2) a clear 

outline of which State will be providing 

data (in this case, both or all States may 

provide data) and which will be 

receiving data (again, both or all States 

may receive data in this role), 

(3) identification of which State will be 

the lead fiscal agent and the lead 

administrative agent, and (4) a brief 

description of any planned or existing 

legally binding agreements (e.g. MOUs, 

data-sharing agreements) between/ 

among partner States that outline the 

expectations of the data-sharing and 

explaining in detail how confidentiality 

will be protected according to Federal 

and State laws. 

iv. Explain plans for sustaining these 

workforce longitudinal databases 

beyond the three-year grant period. 

Applicants should consider how their 

planned or existing MOUs and DataSharing Agreements will be renewed 

with their partners to ensure continued 

maintenance and analysis of the 

longitudinal workforce data. Continued 

Federal funding cannot be guaranteed, 

so applicants are expected to research 

viable alternative funding sources and 

describe them in this section. 

3. Description of Partnership Strategies 

(30 Points) 

Applicants must describe their 

strategy to create, sustain, strengthen or 

expand partnerships and maintain 

working relationships within and 

outside the State workforce system. In 

each of these partner relationships, the 

SWA applicants are expected to 

document their proposed arrangements 

with State education agencies, which 

may include providing brief 

descriptions of existing or proposed 

MOUs, letters of support, and/or 

detailed plans for working relationships 

and shared responsibilities. 

SWAs without the internal capacity to 

operate the longitudinal data system 

will need to partner with an external 

entity (such as a research university or 

a private or non-profit organization) to 

develop, maintain and use the 

longitudinal database, both 

operationally and for research purposes. 

Multi-state applicants must 

demonstrate capacity to either establish 

or improve upon established 

partnerships that enable sharing 

workforce data with other States. In the 

case of a multi-state application, the 

lead fiscal agent/State should be the 

same as the lead administrative agent/ 

State and must be identified along with 

a complete list of additional State 

partners. Multi-state applicants must 

also identify the partnerships among 

agencies/entities within each of the 

member States in response to the points 

listed below. 

In all cases partnerships must be 

forged in gathering relevant workforce 

and education data. The applicant must 

clearly describe the existing or proposed 

partnerships and briefly describe the 

data that the partner will be providing 

for the initiative (for more details, 

please refer back to Section I.A of this 

SGA). 

Note that States with a developed or 

partially developed workforce 

longitudinal database should focus on 

describing maintenance and expansion 

of partnerships, as a description of 

existing partnerships should have 

already been provided in the Statement 

of Current Capacity. 

Scoring under this section will be 

based on the extent to which the 

applicant demonstrates an effective plan 

to execute or to expand the following: 

i. Partnerships Within State Workforce 

Systems 

The applying SWA must demonstrate 

capacity to either establish or improve 

arrangements for sharing workforce 

data. 

ii. Partnerships With State Education 

Agencies 

The applicant must demonstrate 

capacity to establish or maintain a 

relationship with the State education 

agency leading the SLDS initiative. 

Partnerships must be established that 

will create the capacity to link data 

between education and workforce 

databases to support longitudinal data 

analyses and to provide performance 

information from secondary and postsecondary training providers to the 

workforce system and consumers. 

iii. Partnerships With Research 

Universities or Other Research Entities 

If the applicant does not have internal 

capacity to develop or operate a 

longitudinal data system, it must 

demonstrate the ability to establish or 

further develop a relationship with the 

research entity (State university or 

otherwise) or other entities that will be/ 

are engaged in the development of 

longitudinal data systems. Partnerships 

must be established/expanded that will 

ensure that the collection of 

longitudinal workforce data adheres to 

local, State and Federal confidentiality 

laws. Further, these partnerships must 

support the ongoing security and 

confidentiality of these databases for as 

long as they are in existence. This 

research university or other entity will 

be expected to conduct in-depth 

analysis of this longitudinal data and to 

produce standard reports and conduct 

specialized research projects and 

ongoing analysis. 

iv. Partnerships With Additional State 

Agencies 

This includes (but is not restricted to) 

agencies such as the State revenue 

department, in such instances where UI, 

WIA or other programs are administered 

in full or in part in such an agency or 

another agency outside of the SWA. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
27596 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 

Moreover, it may be advantageous for 

SWAs to partner with State economic, 

human services or other agencies in the 

event that such a partnership may 

provide an opportunity to match 

individual level data to the workforce 

longitudinal database. 

4. Description of Database Design, Data 

Quality Assurance and Proposed Uses 

(35 Points) 

Applicants must provide the details of 

the existing or proposed database design 

and explain how the design will help 

achieve the applicant’s objectives. States 

with a developed or partially developed 

workforce longitudinal database should 

describe the existing database design, 

confidentiality measures and data 

analysis, and provide a detailed 

description of the intended design of or 

expansions to data content and usage. 

Applicants will be scored under this 

section on the extent to which they are 

able to demonstrate the actual or 

intended use of the following elements: 

i. Personal Identifier 

Applicants must explain how the 

database will be developed or has been 

developed using the Social Security 

Number (SSN) as a unique personal 

identifier for individuals entering into 

the workforce system, in addition to 

jobseekers and employees already in the 

workforce system. The SSN is already in 

use throughout the workforce system 

and will allow States to gather this data 

longitudinally in order to accurately 

track movement into and out of 

workforce and education systems. 

Collection of the client’s SSN is not 

required throughout the workforce 

system and may not be required as a 

condition of receiving workforce 

development services, and though it is 

nearly uniformly collected on a 

voluntary basis, DOL recognizes that the 

workforce longitudinal databases will be 

restricted to those individuals having 

supplied their SSN and will therefore 

not represent a complete database of all 

persons receiving workforce 

development services. These 

longitudinal databases should also 

include the capacity to link to unique 

identifiers developed by the ED 

statewide longitudinal data systems. 

ii. Data Quality Measures 

The applicant must provide a 

description of development or 

improvement of data validation 

measures and other quality assurance 

measures used to promote the quality, 

completeness, validity, and reliability of 

the data collected. 

iii. Scope of the Longitudinal Data 

Applicants must describe which 

programs are or will be included in the 

data system and the extent to which the 

following data will or can be matched 

through their longitudinal data system: 

• Workforce Investment Act (WIA), 

Title I. 

• Wagner-Peyser Act. 

• Trade Adjustment Assistance and 

Trade Readjustment Allowances 

program data. 

• UI wage record information from 

quarter to quarter measuring 

employment and income earning gains. 

• UI benefit claims and demographic 

data. 

• FEDES data. 

• Existing State education agency 

data (including early childhood, K–12, 

and post-secondary education student 

demographic data, test scores, teachers, 

graduation rates, and transcripts). 

Applicants must also include a 

description of the types of analysis and 

research projects that will be conducted 

with the workforce longitudinal 

database to improve program 

performance and enhance customer 

choice. For examples of effective uses of 

workforce longitudinal databases, please 

refer above to ‘‘Selected Benefits and 

Uses of State Longitudinal Data 

Systems’’ in the ‘‘Background’’ section of 

this SGA. 

iv. Security Measures 

Applicants must specify the plans 

they will develop or improve to protect 

the confidentiality of these records. The 

method for storing, transferring, 

analyzing and sharing data must be 

detailed in accordance with State and 

Federal confidentiality provisions. 

Applicants should also specify the 

planned data files—data records, 

elements, and fields—that will be 

contained in their workforce 

longitudinal data systems. Applicants 

should describe who will be designing, 

developing, storing, protecting and 

using the data. 

v. Planned Reports/Deliverables 

Applicants creating the longitudinal 

database must include in this section of 

the application their plans to produce 

reports that provide information about 

statewide performance of the workforce 

system. Applicants with partially or 

fully developed workforce longitudinal 

databases must describe the extensive 

research and analysis products that will 

be generated beyond the regular 

reporting and analysis requirements. 

Applicants must address how data from 

each partner will be incorporated into 

these reports, and how stakeholders can 

use the reports to improve the workforce 

system. Applicants should also describe 

their plan for disseminating reports and 

materials to the general public. These 

deliverables are for statewide or multistate use and though DOL reserves the 

right to request access to these planned 

reports, submission of these deliverables 

to DOL is not required. (Required 

reports on performance in development 

of the workforce longitudinal databases 

to be submitted to DOL are outlined in 

Section VI.C below) 

5. Staffing Capacity (10 Points) 

Applicants must describe the 

proposed or existing staffing structure 

for this project, including project 

manager(s) and support staffing needs. 

Applicants will be scored on this 

section based on the thoroughness of 

their description of the following: 

i. The workforce longitudinal 

database must be overseen by a Database 

Manager who is qualified to work with 

large and complex administrative 

longitudinal databases. The applicant 

must clearly list the duties and 

responsibilities of this position. The 

applicant must also describe the kinds 

of prior experience that the Database 

Manager (or other key managerial staff 

member) must possess in order to fulfill 

these duties and responsibilities. 

ii. The duties and responsibilities of 

a data analyst(s). 

iii. The identification and 

qualifications of proposed staff 

positions including knowledge, skills 

and abilities as well as examples of the 

kinds of previous experience that make 

a candidate for the position highly 

qualified to assist with planning, 

implementing and conducting analysis 

with these longitudinal databases. 

Detailed position descriptions may be 

included in the ‘‘Attachments to the 

Technical Proposal’’ within the page 

limits. 

iv. How each staff member will be 

expected to facilitate or contribute to the 

various data-sharing partnerships. Be 

sure to include a brief discussion of how 

the applicant will ensure that any staff 

of this project will comply with State 

and Federal confidentiality laws. Please 

verify that State employees (with the 

workforce agency, other agencies or a 

State research institution for example) 

are already subject to State and 

institutional laws, regulations or 

procedures governing confidential datasharing and/or transfer (please refer 

back to Section I.A.5 for more details) 

and be sure to include this in your 

description of such staff under this 

section. 

v. What entity is to be the actual 

employer of each proposed staff 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 27597 

member. For those who are not direct 

employees of the SWA, discuss how 

these individuals will contribute to the 

project and describe what their 

compensation levels will be. 

6. Bonus Points—Other Data Linkages (3 

Points) 

Up to three additional points may be 

awarded to applicants based on the 

extent to which they demonstrate 

concrete and feasible plans to include 

additional sources of data in their 

proposed longitudinal data system. 

These additional data sources may 

include Vocational Rehabilitation 

program information, Registered 

Apprenticeship program data, TANF 

records, Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (Food Stamps) 

records, and data from other similar 

programs which may yield workforcerelated outcomes. These points will be 

awarded based on the ability of 

applicants to demonstrate their ability 

and their intentions to incorporate 

additional data sets and also on the 

number of additional data sets they 

intend to include into their proposed or 

existing longitudinal databases. 

B. Review and Selection Process 

Applications for grants under this 

solicitation will be accepted after the 

publication of this announcement and 

until the closing date. A technical 

review panel will make a careful 

evaluation of applications against the 

criteria. These criteria are based on the 

policy goals, priorities, and emphases 

set forth in this SGA. Up to 103 points 

may be awarded to an application, 

depending on the quality of the 

responses to the required information 

described in Section V.A above. The 

ranked scores will serve as the primary 

basis for selection of applications for 

funding, in conjunction with other 

factors such as geographical balance; the 

availability of funds; and which 

proposals are most advantageous to the 

government. The panel results are 

advisory in nature and not binding on 

the Grant Officer, and the Grant Officer 

may consider any information that 

comes to his/her attention. The 

government may elect to award the 

grant(s) with or without discussions 

with the applicants. Should a grant be 

awarded without discussions, the award 

will be based on the applicant’s 

signature on the SF–424, which 

constitutes a binding offer by the 

applicant including electronic signature 

via E-Authentication on http:// 

www.grants.gov. 

Part VI. Award Administration 

Information 

A. Award Notices 

All award notifications will be posted 

on the ETA Homepage (http:// 

www.doleta.gov). Applicants selected 

for award will be contacted directly 

before the grant’s execution and nonselected applicants will be notified by 

mail. Selection of an organization as a 

grantee does not constitute approval of 

the grant application as submitted. 

Before the actual grant is awarded, the 

Department may enter into negotiations 

about such items as program 

components, staffing and funding levels, 

and administrative systems in place to 

support grant implementation. If the 

negotiations do not result in a mutually 

acceptable submission, the Grant Officer 

reserves the right to terminate the 

negotiation and decline to fund the 

application. 

B. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements 

1. Administrative Program 

Requirements 

All grantees will be subject to all 

applicable Federal laws, regulations, 

and the applicable OMB Circulars. The 

grant(s) awarded under this SGA will be 

subject to the following administrative 

standards and provisions: 

i. Non-Profit Organizations—OMB 

Circulars A–122 (Cost Principles) and 

29 CFR part 95 (Administrative 

Requirements). 

ii. Educational Institutions—OMB 

Circulars A–21 (Cost Principles) and 29 

CFR part 95 (Administrative 

Requirements). 

iii. State and Local Governments— 

OMB Circulars A–87 (Cost Principles) 

and 29 CFR part 97 (Administrative 

Requirements). 

iv. Profit Making Commercial Firms— 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)— 

48 CFR part 31 (Cost Principles), and 29 

CFR Part 95 (Administrative 

Requirements). 

v. All entities must comply with 29 

CFR Parts 93 and 98, and, where 

applicable, 29 CFR parts 96 and 99. 

vi. 29 CFR part 2, subpart D—Equal 

Treatment in Department of Labor 

Programs for Religious Organizations, 

Protection of Religious Liberty of 

Department of Labor Social Service 

Providers and Beneficiaries. 

vii. 29 CFR part 31— 

Nondiscrimination in Federally 

Assisted Programs of the Department of 

Labor—Effectuation of Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

viii. 29 CFR part 32— 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Handicap in Programs and Activities 

Receiving or Benefiting from Federal 

Financial Assistance. 

iv. 29 CFR part 33—Enforcement of 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Handicap in Programs or Activities 

Conducted by the Department of Labor. 

x. 29 CFR part 35— 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age 

in Programs or Activities Receiving 

Federal Financial Assistance from the 

Department of Labor. 

xi. 29 CFR part 36— 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex 

in Education Programs or Activities 

Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. 

The following administrative 

standards and provisions may be 

applicable: 

i. The Workforce Investment Act of 

1998, Public Law 105–220, 112 Stat. 939 

(codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. 2801 

et seq.) and 20 CFR part 667 (General 

Fiscal and Administrative Rules). 

ii. 29 CFR part 29 and 30— 

Apprenticeship and Equal Employment 

Opportunity in Apprenticeship and 

Training; and 

iii. 29 CFR Part 37—Implementation 

of the Nondiscrimination and Equal 

Opportunity Provisions of the 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998. 

The Department notes that the 

Religious Freedom Restoration Act 

(RFRA), 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb, applies 

to all Federal law and its 

implementation. If your organization is 

a faith-based organization that makes 

hiring decisions on the basis of religious 

belief, it may be entitled to receive 

Federal financial assistance under Title 

I of the Workforce Investment Act and 

maintain that hiring practice even 

though section 188 of the Workforce 

Investment Act contains a general ban 

on religious discrimination in 

employment. If you are awarded a grant, 

you will be provided with information 

on how to request such an exemption. 

iv. Under WIA section 181(a)(4), 

health and safety standards established 

under Federal and State law otherwise 

applicable to working conditions of 

employees are equally applicable to 

working conditions of participants 

engaged in training and other activities. 

Applicants that are awarded grants 

through this SGA are reminded that 

these health and safety standards apply 

to participants in these grants. 

In accordance with section 18 of the 

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. 

L. 104–65) (2 U.S.C. 1611) non-profit 

entities incorporated under Internal 

Revenue Service Code section 501(c) (4) 

that engage in lobbying activities are not 

eligible to receive Federal funds and 

grants. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
27598 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 

Except as specifically provided in this 

SGA, DOL’s acceptance of a proposal 

and an award of Federal funds to 

sponsor any programs(s) does not 

provide a waiver of any grant 

requirements and/or procedures. For 

example, the OMB Circulars require that 

an entity’s procurement procedures 

must ensure that all procurement 

transactions are conducted, as much as 

practical, to provide open and free 

competition. If a proposal identifies a 

specific entity to provide services, 

DOL’s award does not provide the 

justification or basis to sole source the 

procurement, i.e., avoid competition, 

unless the activity is regarded as the 

primary work of an official partner to 

the application. 

2. Special Program Requirements 

DOL will require that the program or 

project participate in a formal 

evaluation of overall grant performance. 

DOL will provide both a technical 

assistance and evaluation provider to 

assist grantees in developing and 

implementing each State’s WDQI to 

ensure smooth implementation and 

execution. To measure the success of 

the grant program, DOL will conduct an 

independent evaluation of the outcomes 

and benefits of the grants. Grantees must 

agree to work with DOL’s designated 

evaluation and technical assistance 

providers and to provide access to 

program operating and technical 

personnel, as specified by the 

evaluator(s) under the direction of DOL, 

including after the expiration date of the 

grant. 

C. Reporting 

The grantee must submit quarterly 

financial reports, quarterly progress 

reports, and Management Information 

System (MIS) data electronically. The 

grantee is required to provide the 

regular reports and documents listed 

below: 

1. Quarterly Financial Reports 

A Quarterly Financial Status Report 

(ETA 9130) is required until such time 

as all funds have been expended or the 

grant period has expired. Quarterly 

reports are due 45 days after the end of 

each calendar year quarter. Grantees 

must use DOL’s On-Line Electronic 

Reporting System and information and 

instructions will be provided to 

grantees. 

2. Quarterly Progress Reports 

The grantee must submit a quarterly 

progress report within 45 days after the 

end of each calendar year quarter. In the 

quarterly progress reports, grantees will 

be expected to address the status of 

developing MOUs with their intended 

partners as outlined in their grant 

application in addition to other 

partnerships they foster. Grantees 

should also take this opportunity to 

share the progress they are making with 

obtaining access to longitudinal 

workforce data (please see Section 

V.4.A.4 above of this SGA for a list of 

the data elements required). If the 

grantee is working with a developed or 

partially developed workforce 

longitudinal database, it must briefly 

describe the capacity of its database, 

and how it is being securely maintained 

and then explain in much greater depth 

the status of its plans to expand upon 

its present capacity. 

3. Design Plan 

The first report to be furnished on this 

project will be a detailed design plan 

which will expand upon and 

operationalize the activities proposed in 

this grant application as outlined in Part 

V of this SGA. This report must include 

a timeline which incorporates all project 

stages, milestones, targets and proposed 

schedule of deliverables stemming from 

the analysis of State workforce data for 

statewide dissemination. The grantee 

must submit a budget allotting the 

expenditure of this grant over the three 

year period including, but not limited 

to, considerations for equipment, 

personnel, fees and fixed costs. This 

report will be due to DOL 60 days after 

execution of final grant award. 

4. Final Report 

A draft final report must be submitted 

no later than 60 days before the 

expiration date of the grant. This report 

must summarize project activities, 

outcomes, and related results of the 

project, and should thoroughly 

document approaches. After responding 

to DOL questions and comments on the 

draft report, an original and two copies 

of the final report must be submitted no 

later than the grant expiration date. 

Grantees must agree to use a designated 

format specified by DOL for preparing 

the final report. 

This information must be presented in 

narrative form and must include 

description of: Activities within the 

quarter being reported on, how 

problems or barriers from the previous 

quarter, if any, were addressed, any 

problems or challenges in the current 

quarter, how milestones or activities 

were successfully completed in the 

current quarter and plans for the next 

quarter. Also, reports should include 

updates on expected products or 

deliverables both for statewide 

dissemination and those to be submitted 

to DOL. Reports should include lessons 

learned in the areas of project 

administration and management, project 

implementation, partnership 

relationships, and other related 

information. DOL will provide grantees 

with guidance and tools to help develop 

the quarterly reports once the grants are 

awarded. Grantees must agree to meet 

DOL reporting requirements. 

5. Record Retention 

Applicants should be aware of 

Federal guidelines on record retention, 

which require grantees to maintain all 

records pertaining to grant activities for 

a period of not less than three years 

from the time of final grant close-out. 

VII. Agency Contacts 

For further information regarding this 

SGA, please contact Willie E. Harris, 

Grant Officer, Division of Federal 

Assistance, at (202) 693–3344 (this is 

not a toll-free number). Applicants 

should e-mail all technical questions to 

harris.willie@dol.gov and must 

specifically reference SGA/DFA PY 09– 

10, and along with question(s), include 

a contact name, fax and phone number. 

This announcement is being made 

available on the ETA Web site at 

http://www.doleta.gov/grants and at 

http://www.grants.gov. 

VIII. Additional Resources of Interest to 

Applicants 

A. Resources for the Applicant 

OMB Information Collection No. 

1225–0086. 

Expires November 30, 2012. 

According to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless such collection 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

Public reporting burden for this 

collection of information is estimated to 

average 20 hours per response, 

including time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Send comments regarding the burden 

estimated or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to 

the U.S. Department of Labor, to the 

attention of Darrin A. King, 

Departmental Clearance Officer, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Room N1301, 

Washington, DC 20210. Comments may 

also be e-mailed to 

DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. Please do 

not return the completed applications to 

this address. Send it to the sponsoring 

agency as specified in this solicitation. 

This information is being collected for 

the purpose of awarding a grant. The 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 2010 / Notices 27599 

information collected through this SGA 

will be used by DOL to ensure that 

grants are awarded to the applicant best 

suited to perform the functions of the 

grant. Submission of this information is 

required in order for the applicant to be 

considered for award of this grant. 

Unless otherwise specifically noted in 

this announcement, information 

submitted in the respondent’s 

application is not considered to be 

confidential. 

Willie E. Harris is the grant officer 

overseeing this SGA. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 11th day of 

May, 2010. 

Eric Luetkenhaus, 

Grant Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11610 Filed 5–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency 

Meeting 

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Thursday, May 

20, 2010. 

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 

7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 

22314–3428. 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Briefing on Final Rule—Parts 741 

and 761 of NCUA’s Rules and 

Regulations, Implementation of the 

Secure and Fair Enforcement for 

Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 

(S.A.F.E. Act). 

2. Extension of the Temporary 

Corporate Credit Union Liquidity 

Guarantee Program. 

3. Insurance Fund Report. 

RECESS: 11 a.m. 

TIME AND DATE: 11:15 a.m., Thursday, 

May 20, 2010. 

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 

7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 

22314–3428. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Member Business Loan Waiver 

Appeal. Closed pursuant to Exemption 

(8). 

2. Consideration of Supervisory 

Activities (2). Closed pursuant to some 

or all of the following exemptions: (8), 

(9)(A)(ii) and 9(B). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 

Telephone: 703–518–6304. 

Mary Rupp, 

Board Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11879 Filed 5–13–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0492] 

Notice of Issuance of Regulatory Guide 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance and 

availability of Regulatory Guide 6.7, 

Revision 2, ‘‘Preparation of an 

Environmental Report To Support a 

Rulemaking Petition Seeking an 

Exemption for a RadionuclideContaining Product.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine R. Mattsen, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415– 

6264 or e-mail 

Catherine.Mattsen@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing a revision 

to an existing guide in the agency’s 

‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series 

was developed to describe and make 

available to the public information such 

as methods that are acceptable to the 

NRC staff for implementing specific 

parts of the agency’s regulations, 

techniques that the staff uses in 

evaluating specific problems or 

postulated accidents, and data that the 

staff needs in its review of applications 

for permits and licenses. 

Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 6.7 

was issued with a temporary 

identification as Draft Regulatory Guide, 

DG–6008. This guide provides general 

procedures for the preparation of 

environmental reports (ERs), that are 

submitted to support a rulemaking 

petition for an exemption for a 

radionuclide-containing product, and it 

replaces Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 

6.7, issued June 1976. Use of this 

regulatory guide will help to ensure the 

completeness of the information 

provided in the ER, assist the staff of the 

NRC and others in locating pertinent 

information, and facilitate the 

environmental review process. 

However, the NRC does not require 

conformance with the procedures in the 

regulatory guide, which are provided for 

guidance only. 

II. Further Information 

In November 2009, DG–6008 was 

published with a public comment 

period of 60 days from the issuance of 

the guide. No comments were received 

and the public comment period closed 

on January 8, 2010. Electronic copies of 

Regulatory Guide 6.7, Revision 2 are 

available through the NRC’s public Web 

site under ‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/. 

In addition, regulatory guides are 

available for inspection at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR) located at 

Room O–1F21, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852–2738. The PDR’s 

mailing address is USNRC PDR, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. The PDR 

can also be reached by telephone at 

(301) 415–4737 or (800) 397–4209, by 

fax at (301) 415–3548, and by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Regulatory guides are not 

copyrighted, and NRC approval is not 

required to reproduce them. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day 

of May, 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

/RA/ 

Andrea D. Valentin, 

Chief, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, 

Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11676 Filed 5–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Investor 

Education and Advocacy, 

Washington, DC 20549–0213. 

Extension: 

Rule 19b–5 and Form PILOT; SEC File No. 

270–448; OMB Control No. 3235–0507. 

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments 

on the existing collection of information 

provided for in Rule 19b–5 (17 CFR 

240.19b–5) and Form PILOT (17 CFR 

249.821) under the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934, as amended (‘‘Act’’) (15 

U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission 

plans to submit this existing collection 

of information to the Office of 

Management and Budget for extension 

and approval. 

Rule 19b–5 provides a temporary 

exemption from the rule-filing 

requirements of Section 19(b) of the Act 

(15 U.S.C. 78s(b)) to self-regulatory 

organizations (‘‘SROs’’) wishing to 

establish and operate pilot trading 

systems. Rule 19b–5 permits an SRO to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES