82902 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 226 / Monday, November 27, 2023 / Notices 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. Direct written 

comments and/or suggestions regarding 

the items contained in this notice to the 

Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by 

fax to (202) 395–5806. Provide written 

comments within 30 days of notice 

publication. 

Proposed Project 

Food safety knowledge, attitude, and 

practices survey of correctional 

workers—New—National Center for 

Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious 

Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Background and Brief Description 

In 2017, an analysis of Foodborne 

Disease Outbreak Surveillance System 

(FDOSS) epidemiology data 

demonstrated a disproportionately high 

burden of foodborne outbreaks and 

outbreak-associated illnesses in 

correctional settings compared to other 

settings (Marlow et al., Am J Public 

Health 2017). The CDC is developing 

training programs to reduce foodborne 

illness in correctional facilities. 

However, CDC has little understanding 

of current training and overall food 

safety culture among individuals 

working in correctional settings. This 

survey will allow for the collection of 

baseline knowledge, attitudes, and 

practices (KAP) of correctional staff 

working in a variety of U.S. correctional 

facilities (including federal, state, tribal, 

local and private facilities). The survey 

will assess overall food infrastructure, 

food safety training, and the 

receptiveness of correctional staff to 

being a part of food safety at their 

facilities. The plan will be to repeat the 

survey two years later to support 

interim evaluation of CDC programs. 

CDC requests OMB approval for an 

estimated 2,500 annual burden hours to 

conduct a KAP survey of correctional 

workers. There is no cost to respondents 

other than their time to participate. 

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Type of respondents Form name Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Average burden 

per response 

(in hours) 

Correctional workers ...................................... KAP survey of correctional workers .............. 5,000 1 0.5 

Jeffrey M. Zirger, 

Lead, Information Collection Review Office, 

Office of Public Health Ethics and 

Regulations, Office of Science, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26084 Filed 11–24–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

Request for Information: Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

Implementation of Sections 302 and 

304 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 

2023 

AGENCY: Office of Family Assistance, 

Administration for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

ACTION: Request for information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF), in the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), invites public 

comments on the possibilities for design 

and implementation of the new pilot 

program and work outcomes measures 

of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 

(FRA), in the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) program. The 

FRA requires HHS to carry out a pilot 

program for up to five states to promote 

accountability by measuring 

employment and earnings outcomes as 

well as additional indicators of family 

stability and well-being for TANF 

recipients. In addition, it requires all 

states to report the information 

necessary to calculate certain statutory 

work outcomes measures. ACF seeks 

input from partners to help understand 

some of the options, opportunities, and 

potential challenges associated with the 

development and implementation of the 

pilot program and the reporting of new 

statutory work outcomes measures 

applicable to all states. 

DATES: Comments are due January 11, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit responses to 

TANFquestions@acf.hhs.gov. Please 

include ‘‘TANF FRA’’ in the subject line 

of the email. 

Guidance for Submitting Comments 

• To ensure that your comments are 

clearly understood and properly 

contextualized, please identify the 

specific question or section of this 

notice that your comments address, as 

well as your experience or role that 

informs your response. 

• You are encouraged to comment on 

any issues or concerns you believe are 

relevant or appropriate for our 

consideration and to submit written 

data, facts, and views addressing this 

subject, including but not limited to the 

questions below. 

• You do not need to answer all 

questions listed—only the question(s) 

for which you have relevant 

information. The written RFI response 

should address ONLY the topics for 

which the respondent has knowledge or 

expertise. 

• Wherever possible, please provide 

credible data and specific examples to 

support your views. If you cite academic 

or other studies, they should be publicly 

available to be considered. 

• All submissions are public records 

and may be published on 

www.regulations.gov. Do NOT submit 

sensitive, confidential, or personally 

identifiable information. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1.0 Background 

1.1 Pilot Program 

Section 302 of the FRA authorizes a 

pilot program under which HHS may 

select up to five states to test alternative 

performance metrics in the TANF 

program. Section 302 of the FRA 

provides that for the duration of the 

pilot projects, the work participation 

requirements shall not apply to the pilot 

states and instead, participating states 

will comply with agreed upon 

performance measures and benchmarks. 

In lieu of the work participation rate 

(WPR), state performance will be 

measured by (A) the percentage of workeligible individuals who are employed 

during the 2nd quarter after exiting the 

TANF program; (B) the level of earnings 

of those individuals in the 2nd and 4th 

quarters after exit; and (C) other 

indicators of family stability and wellbeing as established by HHS. States that 

fail to meet agreed upon performance 

benchmarks for these measures will be 

required to enter into a plan with HHS 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 226 / Monday, November 27, 2023 / Notices 82903 

1See https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/ 

measuring-employment-outcomes-tanf. 

2See p.19 https://crsreports.congress.gov/ 

product/pdf/R/R45966; https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ 

opre/report/measuring-employment-outcomes-tanf. 

3See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/ 

performance/performance-indicators. 

4See https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/trainingtechnical-assistance/overview-national-directorynew-hires. 

5See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/ 

performance/swis. 

6See https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/ 

advisories/TEGL/2017/TEGL_26-16_Acc.pdf. 

7See TANF–ACF–PI–2002–01 (FY 2002 TANF 

High Performance Bonus (HPB): New Reporting 

Requirements) https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/policyguidance/tanf-acf-pi-2002-01-fy-2002-tanf-highperformance-bonus-hpb-new-reporting; FY 2024 

Congressional Budget Justification, p. 338 https://

www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 

olab/fy-2024-congressional-justification.pdf. 

8See https://aspe.hhs.gov/tanf-leaversapplicants-caseload-studies and https://

www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/performance/definitions. 

to either achieve the level of 

performance or adjust the benchmarks. 

In the event neither is accomplished, 

the state will no longer be permitted to 

participate in the pilot. The pilots will 

be in effect for six years, with the first 

year being used to establish baseline 

data. 

Since TANF was enacted in 1996, the 

chief measure of program performance 

has been the requirement that states 

meet WPR targets. The WPR measure 

the extent to which states engage 

families receiving TANF cash assistance 

in certain work activities for a specified 

number of hours each week each month 

during a fiscal year. A state must meet 

an overall (or ‘‘all families’’) and a twoparent work participation requirement 

or face a potential financial penalty. The 

WPR targets are 50 percent for all 

families and 90 percent for two-parent 

families, but a state’s individual targets 

equal the statutory rates adjusted 

downward by the number of percentage 

points by which the caseload has fallen 

since a base year for reasons other than 

changes in eligibility rules. 

Over time, states, members of 

Congress, and others have advocated for 

moving TANF beyond solely relying on 

the WPR as a means of defining the 

success of states in supporting TANF 

recipients in entering employment and 

gaining the skills they need for 

economic stability. Many have also 

noted that the WPR is a process measure 

rather than an outcome measure, as it 

measures only a state’s ability to engage 

individuals in specified countable 

activities that lack research to support 

their connection to long term 

employment outcomes.1

While this performance standard 

structure has remained largely 

unchanged since 1996, in recent years 

there has been an increasing interest in 

alternative methods of measuring state 

performance in TANF and other human 

services programs.2 The FRA authorized 

pilots to test alternatives to the WPR. 

As an alternative to the WPR, states 

participating in the pilots would be 

measured against negotiated 

benchmarks for work outcomes and 

other indicators of family stability and 

well-being. The pilots will provide an 

important opportunity for selected 

states to demonstrate different 

approaches to measuring their 

performance in assisting families with 

low incomes. We encourage states to 

think about strategies for promoting and 

measuring economic success and family 

stabilization. ACF is interested in 

learning more about the opportunities 

that the pilot program presents for 

states. ACF is committed to a successful 

pilot program, one that results in useful 

information for policymakers and leads 

to a more effective TANF program that 

further benefits American families. 

1.2 Work Outcomes Measures 

Section 304 of the FRA requires all 

states to collect and submit ‘‘the 

information necessary’’ to determine 

four indicators of performance. These 

are: 

• Employment in the Second Quarter 

after Exit: The percentage of individuals 

who were work-eligible individuals as 

of the time of exit from the program, 

who are in unsubsidized employment 

during the second quarter after the exit; 

• Employment Retention: The 

percentage of individuals who were 

work-eligible individuals who were in 

unsubsidized employment in the second 

quarter after the exit, who are also in 

unsubsidized employment during the 

fourth quarter after the exit; 

• Median Earnings: The median 

earnings of individuals who were workeligible individuals as of the time of exit 

from the program, who are in 

unsubsidized employment during the 

second quarter after the exit; and 

• High School Attainment: The 

percentage of individuals who have not 

attained 24 years of age, are attending 

high school or enrolled in an 

equivalency program, and are workeligible individuals or were workeligible individuals as of the time of exit 

from the program, who obtain a high 

school degree or its recognized 

equivalent while receiving assistance 

under the State program funded under 

this part or within 1 year after the exit. 

Section 304 specifies that to ensure 

nationwide comparability of data, HHS 

shall issue regulations governing 

reporting of the performance indicators 

after it consults with the Secretary of 

Labor and with states. This RFI is one 

of the ways HHS is consulting with 

states. 

The above measures are similar to 

some of the performance accountability 

measures required under the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 

(WIOA).3 The FRA does not specify 

which data sources should be used for 

the above measures. For the first three 

measures, ACF is considering requiring 

states to submit Social Security 

Numbers (SSN) of all work-eligible 

individuals who left TANF in a given 

quarter and ACF would then match 

those SSNs with quarterly wage records 

in the National Directory of New Hires 

(NDNH).4 ACF would then use the 

matched results to compute the first 

three work outcomes measures on 

behalf of states. This approach would 

allow for standardized measures and 

would not require states to initiate new 

data sharing agreements at the state 

level. ACF is interested in learning 

about alternative data sources, such as 

unemployment insurance quarterly 

wage records contained in the State 

Wage Interchange System (SWIS),5 as 

well as data sources that could be used 

to supplement standardized measures. 

Under WIOA, states are allowed to 

submit ‘‘other information as is 

necessary to measure the progress of 

those participants through methods 

other than quarterly wage record 

information’’ if quarterly wage records 

are not available for a participant.6 ACF 

has matched individual TANF case 

records with NDNH wage records since 

FY 2002 for the High Performance 

Bonus measures, and later for 

performance measures that are reported 

as part of the Congressional Budget 

Justification,7 but ACF has not 

calculated a high school attainment 

measure and so is looking for 

information about potential data sources 

and key considerations. Other areas 

include how to operationally define 

TANF exiters, which are defined in the 

statute as those who ‘‘cease[ ] to receive 

assistance under the program funded by 

this part.’’ However, many studies have 

defined an ‘‘exit’’ from TANF in 

different ways, taking churn into 

account; TANF ‘‘leavers’’ studies from 

the early 2000s often defined a ‘‘leaver’’ 

as someone who has left cash assistance 

for at least two months, while WIOA 

defines a ‘‘common exit’’ as a 

participant not receiving Department of 

Labor-administered services for at least 

90 days.8

These work outcomes measures are 

intended to assist federal—and state— 

policymakers in better understanding 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
82904 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 226 / Monday, November 27, 2023 / Notices 

9See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/ 

advisories/training-and-employment-guidanceletter-no-26-16. 

the effectiveness of TANF programs in 

promoting successful employment and 

credential attainment. As with the 

pilots, the work outcomes measures may 

inform future improvements to the 

TANF program. ACF is interested in 

hearing from states their thoughts on 

operationalizing these new measures 

including the potential administrative 

cost and burden involved. 

2.0 Request for Information. 

Through this RFI, ACF is soliciting 

input and information from a broad 

array of stakeholders on how best to 

design and implement the FRA pilot 

program and the new work outcomes 

measures. 

This RFI is for information and 

planning purposes only and should not 

be construed as a solicitation or as an 

obligation on the part of ACF or HHS. 

We ask respondents to address the 

following questions. You do not need to 

address every question and should focus 

on those for which you have relevant 

expertise or experience. In your 

response, please provide a brief 

description of yourself or your 

organization. 

3.0 Key Questions—Pilot Program 

3.1 What are the most important 

criteria a state should meet for selection 

into the pilot program, and why? Are 

there a minimum set of requirements a 

state should meet to be eligible for a 

pilot? If so, which ones? Are there 

aspects of state TANF programs that 

may increase their likelihood of success 

as a pilot? Are there aspects of state 

TANF programs that may impede their 

likelihood of success as a pilot? For 

example, if the benefit amounts or 

caseloads are low, full family sanction 

and family cap policies exist, etc. Is 

there particular past experience or past 

performance achievement that might be 

predictive of states’ ability to 

successfully carry out a pilot? 

3.2 What factors might influence a 

state’s decision whether to pursue 

participation in the pilot program? 

3.3 What technical assistance or 

supports would be helpful for states and 

service providers in designing and 

implementing pilots? What obstacles do 

you foresee and how can ACF provide 

assistance to overcome or manage them? 

3.4 What indicators of family 

stability and well-being, including 

alternative measures related to 

employment, for families participating 

in TANF should we consider measuring 

as part of the pilot? For example, should 

pilots include measures related to 

family poverty, interactions with the 

child welfare system, or other indicators 

related to child well-being? Please 

explain your reasoning. What data 

source(s) would be of most utility in 

tracking your recommended indicators? 

For example, if a state is interested in 

measuring job quality as an indicator of 

family well-being, would a state be able 

to measure that by tracking jobs with 

benefits such as a paid leave or 

employer contribution retirement plans? 

Should family income be included as a 

measure of family stability and wellbeing and, if so, what are the important 

components, who should be included, 

and what would be the most reliable 

and practical sources of data? Should 

any indicators be measured for all lowincome families, irrespective of TANF 

participation, to evaluate whether a 

state’s TANF program is successfully 

serving these families (e.g., the share of 

families living in deep poverty, taking 

into account all sources of income)? 

3.5 What factors (e.g., demographic, 

economic, policy, programmatic) should 

be considered when establishing 

performance benchmarks? In your 

experience, what are the most important 

factors and variables to take into 

consideration when developing 

statistical adjustment models for 

performance benchmarks? 

3.6 What information should be 

collected about the pilots to help 

evaluate and explain their level of 

success? Is there information HHS 

should collect to help determine how a 

successful pilot program may be 

replicated in a different state? Should 

the pilot program undergo a formal 

evaluation? If so, what form should it 

take? Please provide your reasoning. 

3.7 At what point(s) in the 

continuum of participation in a program 

should work and family well-being 

indicators be measured (e.g., while a 

family is still receiving assistance, upon 

exit, two quarters after exit, a year after 

exit)? 

3.8 What characteristics among pilot 

states (e.g., programmatic, geographic, 

economic, demographic) would be most 

helpful in providing useful and scalable 

results for TANF administrators and 

policymakers? What level of diversity 

among pilot sites (e.g., geographic, size, 

location) would be most helpful in 

providing relevant results across states? 

3.9 In what ways should equity be 

considered when implementing a pilot? 

Are there tools or resources needed to 

promote equity in pilot design, 

implementation, and evaluation? What 

factors or data points would you 

consider important to ensuring equity 

(avoiding disparate impacts) in the 

implementation of work and family 

well-being measures as part of the pilot? 

How do we ensure that the individual 

experiences of families that receive 

TANF cash assistance are considered in 

the pilot design, implementation, and 

evaluation? 

3.10 Are there similar past pilot 

efforts (federal, state, local) from which 

HHS should draw lessons learned in 

setting up this pilot project? 

3.11 Are there any other questions 

or issues related to the pilots for which 

you wish to provide comments? 

4.0 Key Questions—Work Outcomes 

Measures 

4.1 In your experience, what data 

sources on employment and earnings 

are most accurate and practical for work 

outcomes measures similar to those 

required by the FRA? What do you see 

as advantages and limitations of 

matching with the National Directory of 

New Hires (NDNH) at the federal level, 

as compared to the State Wage 

Interchange System (SWIS) or other 

alternatives? We are particularly 

interested in understanding the costs, 

timing, administrative burden, and 

reliability of different data sources. 

4.2 If given the opportunity, do you 

believe state agencies would have the 

interest and capacity to voluntarily 

submit supplemental wage information 

(similar to WIOA 9) in addition to 

information needed for a match with the 

NDNH? If so, would states be more 

likely to submit supplemental 

individual-level data or aggregated 

outcomes measures using an alternative 

data source? We are interested in the 

rationale behind the preferred approach. 

4.3 In your experience, what data 

sources are most accurate and practical 

for high school degree or secondary 

school diploma equivalency attainment? 

Is it feasible to reliably determine high 

school completion or secondary school 

diploma equivalency attainment for 

current and former TANF recipients 

using survey data? Please share the 

nature of your experience. 

4.4 When thinking about exit from 

the TANF program, what are the most 

important considerations? In what 

manner, if any, should the issue of 

‘‘churn’’ be addressed? (That is, those 

cases that cycle off for short periods of 

time due to causes such as 

administrative errors, delays in 

redetermination, or sanctions.) 

4.5 We are interested in 

understanding the timelines involved in 

reliably reporting and calculating 

outcome measures. What operational 

issues affect the timing and availability 

of data for the work outcomes measures, 

including TANF caseload, employment 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 226 / Monday, November 27, 2023 / Notices 82905 

10See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2022/04/eo13985-vision-for-equitabledata.pdf. 

and earnings, and education data? For 

example, what is the earliest turnaround 

time for reliably reporting that a TANF 

case has closed? What are the timelines 

involved in matching and working with 

employment and earnings data and 

education data? 

4.6 What factors (e.g., demographic, 

economic, policy, programmatic) should 

be considered for presenting the work 

outcomes measures in context? Are 

there variables such as state economic 

conditions that may impact state 

outcomes and are outside a state TANF 

program’s control? 

4.7 In what ways should equity be 

considered when implementing work 

outcome measures? What are the 

advantages of and/or possible 

difficulties associated with reporting 

data disaggregated by race, ethnicity, 

gender, age, disability, other 

demographic characteristics, or 

geography to enable equity analyses 

around work outcomes? 10

4.8 What technical assistance or 

supports would be helpful for collecting 

data for work outcomes? What obstacles 

do you foresee and how can ACF and 

its partners provide assistance to 

overcome or manage those barriers? 

4.9 Please describe the 

characteristics of successful 

partnerships between the public 

workforce system and the TANF system 

that support the collection of data for 

the work outcomes measures required 

by the FRA? 

4.10 Please describe the specific 

steps for a state to begin collecting and 

reporting data and their estimated 

duration. For example, please estimate 

the timeframe for system changes to 

generate a list of SSNs of work-eligible 

individuals who left TANF in a given 

quarter. 

4.11 Are there any other questions 

or issues related to the work outcomes 

measures for which you wish to provide 

comments? 

4.12 HHS has determined that tribes 

are NOT required to report work 

outcomes measures as laid out in the 

Fiscal Responsibility Act. However, 

OFA is committed to supporting Tribal 

TANF programs that wish to voluntarily 

measure work outcomes for their 

caseloads. As we explore this 

possibility, what factors do we need to 

better understand? What training or 

technical assistance could support 

Tribal TANF programs interested in 

measuring work outcomes? 

Authority: Fiscal Responsibility Act of 

2023. 

Ann Flagg, 

Director, Office of Family Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26100 Filed 11–22–23; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–36–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

[Docket No. FDA–2023–N–1554] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for Office of 

Management and Budget Review; 

Comment Request; Qualitative 

Feedback on Agency Service Delivery 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is 

announcing that a proposed collection 

of information has been submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and clearance under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Submit written comments 

(including recommendations) on the 

collection of information by December 

27, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on 

the information collection are received, 

OMB recommends that written 

comments be submitted to https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. The OMB 

control number for this information 

collection is 0910–0697. Also include 

the FDA docket number found in 

brackets in the heading of this 

document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of 

Operations, Food and Drug 

Administration, Three White Flint 

North, 10A–12M, 11601 Landsdown St., 

North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301–796– 

3794, PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA 

has submitted the following proposed 

collection of information to OMB for 

review and clearance. 

Qualitative Feedback on Agency 

Service Delivery 

OMB Control Number 0910–0697— 

Extension 

FDA will garner qualitative customer 

and stakeholder feedback using a variety 

of methods in order to gain useful 

insights into customer or stakeholder 

perceptions, experiences, and 

expectations; provide an early warning 

of issues with service; or focus attention 

on areas where communication, 

training, or changes in operations might 

improve delivery of products or 

services. These collections will allow 

for ongoing, collaborative, and 

actionable communications between the 

Agency and its customers and 

stakeholders. It will also allow feedback 

to contribute directly to the 

improvement of program management. 

Feedback collected under this generic 

clearance will provide useful 

information, but it will not yield data 

that can be generalized to the overall 

population. This type of generic 

clearance for qualitative information 

will not be used for quantitative 

information collections that are 

designed to yield reliably actionable 

results, such as monitoring trends over 

time or documenting program 

performance. 

Respondents to this collection of 

information cover a broad range of 

customers and stakeholders who have 

specific characteristics related to certain 

products or services regulated by FDA. 

These stakeholders include members of 

the general public, healthcare 

professionals, industry, and others who 

have experience with a product under 

FDA’s jurisdiction. 

In the Federal Register of May 25, 

2023 (88 FR 33889), FDA published a 

60-day notice requesting public 

comment on the proposed collection of 

information. One comment was received 

but it was outside the scope of the PRA. 

FDA estimates the burden of this 

collection of information as follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES