REL Southwest OMB Supporting Statement (A#2) - Studies 1.1.1 1.1.2 (version 2 7-27-06)

REL SOUTHWEST Contract No. ED-06-CO-0017

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR PAPERWORK REDUCATION ACT SUBMISSIONS

PRIORITY NEEDS FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH NEEDS OF THE SOUTHWEST AND ESTABLISHING A BASELINE FOR REL SOUTHWEST PERFORMANCE

OMB CONTROL NO: XXXX

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

The current authorization for the Regional Laboratories program is under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Part D, Section 174, (20 U.S.C 9564), administered by the Institute of Education Sciences’ National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. This data collection is in accordance with this regional educational laboratory contractor’s five year plan to establish how this laboratory contractor shall ensure that the research base used or developed for its research endeavors is consistent with the IES standards for scientifically valid research. (See sections 134, 173 and 174 of the IES authorizing legislations.)

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

This will be a new data collection. The respondents will consist of parents, business leaders and pre-K through higher ed. educators (e.g., teachers, principals, test directors, among others) from Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The information obtained will provide a landscape of the region. It will also identify the educational research needs of REL Southwest constituents and create insights needed to most efficiently serve those constituents. In addition, it will identify satisfaction levels with current research available, identify educational issues facing REL Southwest constituents, and identify unique areas of technical assistance most needed. The information obtained through the project will be used by REL Southwest, IES, state/district policymakers, district administrators, educators, building administrators, curriculum directors, parents, business communities, and possible others.

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

Data collection will be done by deploying a survey online/over the internet. Invitations to take the survey will be sent by email to target population segments. This methodology of online data collection will help to ensure minimum time commitment from respondents as most surveys will be completed within 15 minutes. We determined this time using two methods.

The first method was to test the time it took for nine respondents to complete a paper/pencil version of this survey. We had nine individuals complete the survey. The respondents time ranged from 5 minutes to complete a survey to 17 minutes to complete a survey. The average time it took respondents to complete the educator survey was 11 minutes; the average time for the parent survey was 10 minutes; and the average time for business leaders was 8 minutes. These averages are comparable to the 15 minutes we are estimating for the full project. It is important to keep in mind that the group testing the timing of the survey is smaller and does not take into account the various titles that may take longer or shorter to complete the survey (for example, we did not test the survey with superintendents who may provide more or less open-ended comments). In addition, there will be some time variance for people taking the survey online as compared with those taking the survey via paper/pencil.

The second method used was to rely on our previous years experience deploying similar email surveys to these specific groups and the average time it took respondents to complete surveys of this length. In our experience, the time it takes respondents to complete a survey of this length varies greatly depending on the individual themselves, the amount of detail provided in the open-ended sections, the individual’s title, the circumstances going on around the individual while taking the survey, etc. Therefore, 15 minutes is an acceptable range.

Using an online survey will help reduce burden in that it significantly reduces the amount of paperwork necessary to create a traditional paper/pencil survey sent to respondents. It is also less time-consuming to complete, as respondents do not need to return the survey by mail or fax their completed responses. It also allows respondents the flexibility to complete the survey at times that are most convenient for them. The online survey is less expensive than traditional paper/pencil and phone surveys and alleviates time spent on data entry, as respondents’ responses are automatically entered into a database. All steps described above reduce the burden (both in terms of time and budget) for the originator of the survey (REL Southwest) as well as respondents’ time and efforts.

Response rates to REL Southwest’s online survey are expected to be acceptable; however, if response rates in certain areas are low (such as schools/districts in hurricane-impacted areas of Louisiana and/or rural schools/districts or parents that do not have access to the internet and thus cannot complete an online survey), a phone survey may be deployed to help meet quota targets if necessary.

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

Secondary research conducted by REL Southwest has revealed that not a lot of research has been done to accurately identify research needs of educators in the southwest region, nor has the available research been projectable to or representative of the constituents in our five state region. Also since 2006 will be the first year of Edvance Research, Inc. managing REL Southwest, no prior baseline of performance exists and hence there is no concern for duplication of existing research.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 5 of OMB Form 83-I), describe any methods used to minimize burden.

This collection of information does not impact small businesses or other small entities.

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

If this collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, then the Department of Education will not be able to enhance its understanding of the specific education related research needs of the southwest region in a timely manner. Also a baseline of performance for the REL Southwest will not be established and hence will hinder the Department of Education in effectively measuring the research efforts undertaken by REL Southwest.

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner: *requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly; *requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it; *requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document; *requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years; *in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study; *requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB; *that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; *or requiring respondent to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

No special circumstances exist for this data collection.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden. Consultation with representatives of those from who compile records should occur at least once every 3 years – even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

Page and Date of publication in the Federal Register of the agency’s notice is 45541 and August 9, 2006.

We have not received any public comments.

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

An incentive of a $10 gift certificate will be provided to specific groups of respondents where expected response rates are thought to be lower than average. Those groups include the following (please see chart on pages 2-4 in OMB Form Part B.3 for a complete listing of all of the groups identified in this project):

• Rural and Urban/Suburban Superintendents in Louisiana

• Rural and Urban/Suburban Superintendents in New Mexico

• Rural and Urban/Suburban Special Education Directors in Louisiana

• Rural and Urban/Suburban Special Education Directors in New Mexico

• Urban/Suburban Curriculum Directors in Louisiana

• Urban/Suburban Curriculum Directors in New Mexico

• Rural and Urban/Suburban Testing/Assessment Directors in Louisiana

• Rural and Urban/Suburban Testing/Assessment Directors in New Mexico

• Rural and Urban/Suburban ELL/Bilingual Directors in Arkansas

• Rural and Urban/Suburban ELL/Bilingual Directors in Louisiana

• Rural and Urban/Suburban ELL/Bilingual Directors in New Mexico

• Rural and Urban/Suburban ELL/Bilingual Directors in Oklahoma

• Asian/Pacific Islander Parents in all 5 states

• Native American Parents in all 5 states

Offering a modest incentive of a $10 gift card to individuals where response rates are thought to be low will help ensure timely responses and will increase overall response rates. We are suggesting offering such an incentive based on our previous years’ experience conducting market research. The use of incentives has proven successful by increasing response rates. In studies where incentives were not provided, response rates were lower.

According to a report entitled “Providing Incentives to Survey Respondents” submitted by the Council of Professional Association on Federal Statistics in September 22, 1993 (which was a summary of symposium findings and recommendations of the “Symposium on Providing Incentives to Survey Respondents”, sponsored by OMB and the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS) held in October 1992), the symposium participants recommended the serious consideration of using incentives to encourage hard to reach respondent populations. In particular, to “encourage hard core refusal to respond, especially in small subpopulations of interest.”

By offering a modest incentive of a $10 gift card, we are hoping to obtain a representative sample from the various respondent groups we are surveying. Not offering an incentive to more difficult to reach individuals, we believe, will negatively impact our ability to hear from the various groups. If that is the case, then we will need to conduct phone interviews with individuals. Phone interviews are significantly more expensive than conducting online surveys—even with the incentive included in the cost of the online survey. Therefore, offering incentives to the more difficult to reach individuals will not only save time, but will also produce significant financial savings by not having to conduct as many or possibly any telephone interviews.

In the OMB proposal for the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty: 2004 (NSOPE:04) – Faculty Survey (KI) (OMB Control-version: (02369) 1850-0608-v.2), there is a discussion regarding a field test incentive experiment whereby incentives were and were not offered. The findings show that “16 percent of the sample members that received no incentive responded during the period; 31 percent of the sample members who received a $20 incentive offer responded, and 34 percent of the $30 incentive group responded in the period. Both the $20 incentive group and the $30 incentive group response rates were different from the no incentive group (p < 0.0001).” Clearly, incentives help increase response rates.

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

Regarding confidentiality: Although every measure will be taken to protect the confidentiality of the data collected, confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific district or individual. We will not provide information that identifies the respondent or the district to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law.

Regarding privacy issues: We will not be seeking any personal information from respondents. We will be collecting only professional emails, as well as the name, phone, and address of the respondent’s employer/educational institution/district. In our surveys, we will inform all respondents that it is optional for them to provide us with their professional contact information.

Regarding email addresses:

One of the primary functions of REL Southwest is to disseminate research information to its constituents. Therefore, it is important for us to collect the professional email information from those who grant us permission, since email is the primary way to communicate with our constituents.

This is especially important in areas such as Louisiana and parts of Texas, which are still affected by infrastructure damages due to hurricanes Katrina and Rita and do not even have physical professional/business addresses or professional/direct business phones. We have found that in such regions email has emerged as the primary and preferred method of contact. By requesting the professional email addresses (and NOT personal email addresses) of those who opt in, we hope to use email as a way to disseminate research and communicate with them to learn more about the education research needs of their region.

From those respondents that will be offered the gift card as incentive, we will also seek permission to use their email address to send them the electronic gift card. However, we will notify them that this information will be used only for sending their gift card.

Regarding names:

We will collect first and last names of respondents so that we can make our future research dissemination letters appear more formal to our constituents. Collection of first and last name of constituents will also aid us in avoiding duplication in future data collection and dissemination activities. However, we have also stated that completion of this is optional.

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

The survey developed for this data collection does not have any questions of a sensitive nature.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should: *Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices. *If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens in Item 13 of OMB Form 83-I. *Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included in Item 13.

This study involves collecting information from a variety of educators, business leaders and parents involved in elementary, secondary and higher education in the southwest region (comprised of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas).

Within the targeted elementary and secondary education segment, we will collect information from educators having the following titles: Chief State School Officer, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Special Education Director, Curriculum Director, Testing/Assessment Director, ELL/Bilingual Director, Principal/Assistant Principal, Teacher and Librarian.

Within higher education, we will collect information from educators having the following titles: College Department Chair, Graduate Dean, Graduate Assistant Dean, College Admissions Director, College Student Affairs Director/Officer.

We will collect information from parents who currently reside in the southwest and have children attending elementary, secondary or higher education schools in the southwest.

We will also collect information from business leaders who are involved in elementary, secondary or higher education in the southwest region.

For each respondent title, we will collect information from rural, urban and suburban schools/districts and universities/colleges within the targeted state. The number of surveys required to be completed per respondent title within rural, urban and suburban schools/districts (for each of the 5 REL Southwest states) was calculated using sampling techniques (outlined in Item 16) to ensure collection of data that will be statistically projectable for each targeted population segment.

Respondent	Number of respondents per region type: (Rural Regions)	Number of respondents per region type: (Urban and Suburban Regions)	Total Number of Respondents: (Rural+Urban+Suburban)	Burden Hours Per Respondent	Number of Collections	Total Annual Person Hours For All Five REL Southwest States
Superintendents	307	177	484	0.25	1	121
Special Education Directors/Assistant Superintendents	307	178	485	0.25	1	121
Curriculum Directors/Assistant Superintendents	313	212	525	0.25	1	131
Testing/Assessment Directors/Assistant Superintendents	238	116	354	0.25	1	89
ELL/Bilingual Directors	192	105	297	0.25	1	74
Principals/Assistant Principals	442	441	883	0.25	1	221
Teachers	479	478	957	0.25	1	239
Librarians	221	220	441	0.25	1	110
Higher Education 2 Year Colleges (College Department Chair, Dean, College Admissions Director, College Student Affairs Director)	210	209	419	0.25	1	105
Higher Education 4 Year and Graduate Colleges (College Department Chair, Undergraduate/ Graduate Dean, College Admissions Director, College Student Affairs Director)	228	229	457	0.25	1	114
Educators (Total)	2,937	2,365	5,302	0.25	1	1,325
Parents	1,125	1,125	2,250	0.25	1	563
Business Leaders	250	250	500	0.25	1	125
Total	-	-	8,052	-	-	2,013

The estimated average time per interview was calculated based on the experience of using similar instruments from other research surveys with the targeted audience.

Estimates of annualized cost to respondents:

Respondent	Total Number of Respondents: (Rural+Urban+Suburban)	Burden Hours Per Respondent	Number of Collections	Total Annual Person Hours For All Five REL SOUTHWEST States	*Hourly Salary Estimate	Total Annual Cost for All Five REL Southwest States
Superintendents	484	0.25	1	121	$40	$4,840
Special Education Directors/Assistant Superintendents	485	0.25	1	121	$40	$4,840
Curriculum Directors/Assistant Superintendents	525	0.25	1	131	$38	$4,978
Testing/Assessment Directors/Assistant Superintendents	354	0.25	1	89	$38	$3,382
ELL/Bilingual Directors	297	0.25	1	74	$38	$2,812
Principals/Assistant Principals	883	0.25	1	221	$39	$8,619
Teachers	957	0.25	1	239	$29	$6,931
Librarians	441	0.25	1	110	$27	$2,970
Higher Education 2 Year Colleges (College Department Chair, Dean, College Admissions Director, College Student Affairs Director)	419	0.25	1	105	$40	$4,200
Higher Education 4 Year and Graduate Colleges (College Department Chair, Undergraduate/ Graduate Dean, College Admissions Director, College Student Affairs Director)	457	0.25	1	114	$40	$4,560
Educators (Total)	5,302	0.25	1	1,325	-	$48,132
Parents	2,250	0.25	1	563	$40	$45,000
Business Leaders	500	0.25	1	125	$50	$12,500
Total Cost	-	-	-	-	-	$105,632

* The hourly salaries provided here were derived from annual salary estimations and adjusted for inflation.

13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden show in Items 12 and 14). The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services components. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life or capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. *If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10) utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic and regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate. Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associate with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

There are no startup costs to respondents.

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

The total annualized cost to the Federal Government per study is $156,639.

Total annualized costs (which includes combined data collection for two studies) are $313,278. The estimated capital/startup costs are estimated to be $206,777. This estimate includes costs for purchasing contact information for educators along with access to their email addresses for online data collection, online survey software and hosting fees, phone survey costs and incentives that will need to be paid to fulfill any survey quotas.

Total annual costs (O&M) of $106,501 include labor costs for REL Southwest staff that will be involved and responsible for this data collection, results analysis and product development efforts.

All costs are outlined as follows:

	Item	Total Cost
Annualized Capital Costs	Total Annualized Capital Cost (including data collection costs, email purchase costs, online survey software cost, online survey hosting costs, incentives costs and phone survey fielding fees (if needed))	$206,777
Annual Costs	Total Annual Labor Cost	$106,501
Total Annualized Costs for One Year	Costs for one year	$313,278
Total Cost for 3 Years	Cost for 3 years	$939,834

All cost estimations have been done based on our prior experiences in fielding similar online surveys within the targeted survey populations.

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or 14 of the OMB Form 83-I.

The total annual person hours for respondents from all 5 REL Southwest states is 2,013. The 2,013 program change is because this is a new collection.

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

Current NCES data states that there are approximately over 400,000 Teachers and 15,000 Schools within the 5 REL Southwest states. However this data was collected in 2003-2004 and does not represent a current estimate of the true educator populations within the 5 REL Southwest states. Hence we will use a combination of secondary and primary research efforts to fulfill research objectives for this study. The secondary research will be conducted prior to launching the primary research. Through secondary research, most current estimates of the actual constituent populations will be identified for each of the 5 REL Southwest states. This secondary research will be used to guide the stratification and development of quotas to be used in the primary methodology. We will then leverage stratified random sampling to collect statistically projectable data that is representative of all educators involved in elementary, secondary and higher education in the southwest.

In the primary phase, a survey will be deployed to fulfill project research objectives. The survey will be deployed via the internet. For identified constituents who do not have access to the internet, a phone survey may be deployed to meet quota targets. All data will be presented at 95% confidence level with +/-10% confidence interval.

The following eight educator sub segments will be targeted within the pre-K-12 category:

1. Superintendents

2. Special Education Directors/Assistant Superintendents

3. Curriculum Directors/Assistant Superintendents

4. Testing/Assessment Directors/Assistant Superintendents

5. ELL/Bilingual Directors/Assistant Superintendents

6. Principals/Assistant Principals

7. Teachers (pre K-12 grades and covering a wide variety grades and subject areas)

8. Librarians

Within Higher Education, we will limit our data collection to educators involved in undergraduate education. Specifically we will focus on the following four specific educator titles:

1. College Department Chairs

2. Graduate Deans/Assistant Graduate Deans

3. College Admissions Directors

4. College Student Affairs Directors/Officers

We will survey parents who currently have a child (or children) involved in pre-K elementary, secondary or higher education in the 5 REL Southwest states.

We will also survey business leaders who are involved in pre-K elementary, secondary or higher education in the 5 REL Southwest states.

Sampling of the populations will be done using the below listed two part formula. The first part calculates the sample size as though the population is infinite. This is defined as n. The second part corrects for the population size.

1) n=(z/m)^2*p*(1-p) where:

• z is the standard normal statistic and carries the following values:
  90% confidence: 1.645
  95% confidence: 1.96
  99% confidence: 2.575

• m is the desired error

• p is the probability of the outcome

• ^2 means "the square of the resulting number"

2) n'=n/(1-n/N) where:

• n is the result from the equation in part 1) above

• N is the population size

We will survey stratified samples of the entire population and analyze importance, satisfaction and awareness data. Conducting a survey of the stratified population segments will provide a statistically projectable representation (of our five state region) with which to assess research needs, perceived satisfaction with existing research available to constituents and awareness level of the REL Network and REL Southwest.

In terms of general data analysis we will examine the perceived importance of each education issue identified by survey respondents, as well as the satisfaction rating on the quality, applicability, relevancy of existing research and awareness rating for the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Network and the REL Southwest. We will generate frequency distributions for each importance, satisfaction and awareness item to gain a better understanding of the issues that are most important to our constituents, and the areas in which further improvement is needed.

In addition to this general analysis, we will also conduct analyses of importance, satisfaction and awareness by location (rural and urban/sub-urban), state and population segments. We will also cross-tabulate each importance, satisfaction and awareness item by location (rural, urban and sub-urban), state and population segments. Given the categorical nature of our data, cross-tabulations are the most appropriate method of descriptive analysis.

Publication:

The following research products will be developed and published to present information collected through this research effort:

• Two Interim Research Bulletins/Products

• Two Final Research Reports

• District Level Advisory REL Southwest Product

• Policy Level Brief REL Southwest Product

Timeline:

Contract Month	Project Task	Completion Date
August	Publish project documents on Federal Register (60 day)	8/9/2006
August - October	Federal Register survey posting duration	8/9 – 10/9/2006
October - November	Federal Register Posting (30 day)	10/2006 – 11/2006
October - TBD	OMB Review Period	10/2006 - TBD
January	*Survey pilot: Survey emailed to a select, small sample of respondents	*1/4/2007
January	*Preliminary data collected and analyzed; Quota completion rates analyzed to evaluate if phone survey would be needed	1/4 - 1/8/2007
January	*Second email blast to larger survey sample	1/9/2007
January	*Third survey blast (if needed)	1/11/2007
January	*Online data collection completed and quota levels evaluated	1/16 – 1/18/2007
January	*Phone survey fielding launched (if needed)	1/18
January	*Phone survey data collection completed	1/18 – 1/31/2007
February	*Phone survey data files received	2/7/2007
February - March	*Phone and online survey data analyzed and report developed	2/7 – 3/14/2007
April	Revisions incorporated and final report on REL Southwest states submitted	4/12/2007
June	Submit Policy Level Brief REL Southwest Product	6/3/2007
July - December	Submit District Level Advisory REL Southwest Product	7/31/2007

*Survey pilot and any data collection with more than 9 people will not occur until OMB project approval has been granted. Therefore, data collection and analysis dates are subject to change.

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

Not Applicable

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19, “Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions,” of OMB Form 83-I

Not Applicable

13