60-Day Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 16, 2017 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–6003–N–03]

60-Day Notice of Proposed Information
Collection: Resident Opportunity and
Self-Sufficiency Service Coordinator
(ROSS–SC) Program Evaluation
Office of Policy Development
and Research, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

HUD is seeking approval from
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for the information collection
described below. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is
requesting comments from all interested
parties on the proposed collection of
information. The purpose of this notice
is to allow for 60 days of public
comment.

SUMMARY:

DATES:

Comments Due Date: July 17,

2017.
Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments should refer to
the proposal by name and/or OMB
Control Number and should be sent to:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management
Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street
SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC
20410–5000; telephone (202) 402–5534
(this is not a toll-free number) or email
at [email protected] for a copy of
the proposed forms or other available
information. Persons with hearing or
speech impairments may access this
number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–
8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management
Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
Anna P. Guido at Anna.P.Guido@
hud.gov or telephone (202) 402–5535
(this is not a toll-free number). Persons
with hearing or speech impairments
may access this number through TTY by
calling the toll-free Federal Relay
Service at (800) 877–8339. Copies of
available documents submitted to OMB
may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice informs the public that HUD is
seeking approval from OMB for the
information collection described in
Section A.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

ADDRESSES:

A. Overview of Information Collection
Title of Information Collection:
Resident Opportunity and Self-

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:42 May 15, 2017

Jkt 241001

Sufficiency Service Coordinator (ROSS–
SC) Program Evaluation.
OMB Approval Number: Pending.
Type of Request: New.
Form Number: No forms.
Description of the need for the
information and proposed use: HUD is
conducting this study under contract
with the Urban Institute and its
subcontractors (EJP Consulting). The
project is an evaluation of the Resident
Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency
Service Coordinator (ROSS–SC)
program operated by grantees across the
country. It will include a national webbased survey and in-person site visits to
select grantees. Since 2008, the ROSS–
SC program has provided information
and referral for families, elderly, and
disabled residents in public housing by
funding local Service Coordinators to
link residents to resources that they
need to become independent and selfsufficient. The purpose of the program
is to leverage existing local public and
private services to increase income,
reduce or eliminate welfare assistance,
work towards economic independence
and housing self-sufficiency, and
improve living conditions and ability to
age in-place for elderly and disabled
residents. To date, there has been no
HUD-funded evaluation of this program.
A GAO study across several HUD selfsufficiency programs published in 2013
found that the ROSS–SC program lacked
enough quality data on participation
and outcomes ‘‘to determine whether it
was meeting goals of the effective and
efficient use of resources’’ in improving
resident self-sufficiency and
independence. They recommended
improving the data reporting process
and developing a strategy for regularly
analyzing ROSS–SC participation and
outcome data. This project helps
implement GAO’s recommendations by:
(1) Assessing improvements in program
processes and reporting since changes
were made to the program’s logic model
in FY 2014; (2) examining the breadth
and depth of ROSS–SC program
implementation by current service
coordinators across all grantee types;
and (3) analyzing current reporting
requirements and performance metrics
to improve future program outcome
evaluation. To do so, this study will use
a full population survey of current
service coordinators funded through
ROSS–SC grants made in FY 2013, FY
2014, and FY 2015, and site visits to
select grantees.
A web-based survey will allow the
study team to investigate important
Service Coordinator (SC) program
characteristics not included in grant
applications or current reporting tools,

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

22559

in order to provide generalizable
evidence on the ‘‘effective and efficient
use of resources’’ across all ROSS–SC
service coordinators. These include SC
qualifications and experience, program
management structure, resident intake
and assessment processes, services
offered, partnerships utilized and
leveraged, and case management data
systems and outcome evaluation tools
used to track participant activities and
outcomes. Since there is no centralized
database of service coordinator contact
information, this must first be obtained
through a brief online survey sent to
each grantee contact person.
Site visits to seven high-performing
grantees will include onsite
observations and interviews with
grantees, service coordinators, and
program partners, as well as focus
groups with program participants to
gather context-specific data on both
program processes and outcomes to aid
in identifying best practices and
common challenges across grantees.
Respondents: For the survey, 330
grantee contact persons and 840 service
coordinators (assumes 70% response
rate from total estimated population of
1200) at 7 grantee site visit locations, 56
staff and partners, and 107 public
housing residents.
Estimated total number of hours
needed to prepare the information
collection including number of
respondents, frequency of response,
hours of response, and cost of response
time: Based on the below assumptions
and tables, we calculate the total burden
hours for this study to be 1,248.50 hours
and the total cost to be $32,975.18.
Whereas many ROSS–SC grantee
contact persons in HUD’s database are a
PHA Executive Director, PHA Division
Director, or the Chief Executive Officer
of the grantee, we estimated their cost
per response by using the most recent
(May 2015) Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Occupational Employment Statistics
median hourly wage for the labor
category, Chief Executives (11–1011):
$84.19.
Whereas ROSS–SC service
coordinators and other grantee staff and
service partners have a range of
experience and skills, we averaged the
median hourly wage for two labor
categories: The Social and Community
Service Manager (11–9151) median
hourly wage of $30.54, and the
Community and Social Service
Specialists, All Other (21–1099)
category with a rate of $20.14. This
produces an average of both median
hourly wage rates equal to $25.34.

E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM

16MYN1

22560

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 16, 2017 / Notices

Respondent

Occupation

SOC Code

Grantee Contact Person .................................
ROSS Service Coordinator & Partners ..........

Chief Executive ..............................................
Social and Community Services Manager .....
Community and Social Service Specialist, All
Other.

Median hourly
wage rate

11–1011
11–9151
21–1099

Average
(median)
hourly wage
rate

$84.19
30.54
20.14

$84.19
25.34

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics (May 2015), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm.

Hourly costs for public housing
resident focus group participants were
estimated using FY 2016 HUD 30%
Income Limit for All Areas calculations
from the Office of Policy Development
and Research through HUD’s Web site
located at https://www.huduser.gov/
portal/datasets/il/il16/index.html. This
identifies income limits by county for
extremely low income households
earning at or below 30% of their county
median income. These limits are
adjusted by household sizes of up to
eight household members. We averaged
the county median values to produce a
national average median income by

household size for extremely low
income households. Based on the
ROSS–SC program emphasis on
increasing family self-sufficiency, and
independent living and aging in place
for the elderly and disabled, we estimate
that:
• 20% of potential respondents will
live alone (21 respondents) with an
average median income of $13,537.
• 10% will reside in a 2-person
household (11 respondents) with an
average median income of $15,464.
• 30% will reside in a 3-person
household (32 respondents) with an
average median income of $17,396.

Number of
respondents

Information collection
ROSS Grantee Contact Person Survey ..
ROSS Service Coordinators Survey ........
ROSS Site Visit—Staff and Partners .......
HUD Residents living alone .....................
HUD Residents in 2-person household ...
HUD Residents in 3-person household ...
HUD Residents in 4-person household ...
HUD Residents in 5-person household ...

330

Hourly cost
per response
($)

Annual burden
hours

Total cost
($)

56
21
11
32
32
11

0.25
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

82.5
840
112
42
22
64
64
22

84.19
25.34
25.34
6.94
7.93
8.92
9.90
10.70

6,945.68
21,285.60
2,838.08
291.48
174.46
570.88
633.60
235.40

1,333

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

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

1,248.5

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

32,975.18

full population is estimated at 1,200 service coordinators. The number of respondents is based on anticipated response rate of 70%.

B. Solicitation of Public Comment

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

Burden hour
per response

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1 840

Total ..................................................
1 The

Frequency of
response

• 30% will reside in a 4-person
household (32 respondents) with an
average median income of $19,305.
• 10% will reside in a 5-person
household (11 respondents) with an
average median income of $20,872.
To produce a basic hourly rate, we
divide the average median annual
income amount by 1,950 work hours per
year, equaling 5 days at 37.5 hours per
week for each of the 52 weeks out of the
year.
All assumptions are reflected in the
table below.

This notice is soliciting comments
from members of the public and affected
parties concerning the collection of
information described in Section A on
the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through
the use of appropriate automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:42 May 15, 2017

Jkt 241001

HUD encourages interested parties to
submit comment in response to these
questions.
Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Dated: May 9, 2017.
Matthew E. Ammon,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Development and Research.
[FR Doc. 2017–09866 Filed 5–15–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year reviews, the
United States International Trade
Commission (‘‘Commission’’)
determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of
1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the
antidumping duty orders on helical
spring lock washers from China and
Taiwan would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
States within a reasonably foreseeable
time.
Background

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–624–625 (Fourth
Review)]

Helical Spring Lock Washers From
China and Taiwan; Determinations

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

The Commission, pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)),
instituted these reviews on November 1,
2016 (81 FR 75851) and determined on
February 6, 2017 that it would conduct
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).

E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM

16MYN1