Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49411 

• Fax: 202–343–4010. 

• Mail: Philip S. Kaplan, Chief 

Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Washington, DC 20528–0655. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general questions, please contact: 

William Holzerland, (202) 212–7719, 

Senior Director for Information 

Management, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472. For privacy 

questions, please contact: Philip S. 

Kaplan, (202) 343–1717, Chief Privacy 

Officer, Privacy Office, Department of 

Homeland Security, Washington, DC 

20528–0655. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 

1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its 

ongoing integration and management 

efforts, the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is 

rescinding the system of records notice, 

‘‘Letter of Map Amendment System 

(LOMA), DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA–1’’, 

which covered applicants who were 

seeking a letter of map amendment as 

part of FEMA’s National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP) Letter of Map 

Amendment (LOMA) system. 

FEMA will continue to collect and 

maintain records regarding FEMA’s 

Letters of Map Amendments and will 

rely upon the newly-created FEMA 

system of records notice titled ‘‘DHS/ 

FEMA–014 Hazard Mitigation Planning 

and Flood Mapping Products and 

Services System of Records’’ that is also 

published in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

Eliminating this system of records 

notice will have no adverse impacts on 

individuals, but will promote the 

overall streamlining and management of 

DHS Privacy Act record systems. 

System Name and Number: 

‘‘Letter of Map Amendment System 

(LOMA), DHS/FEMA/NFIP/LOMA–1.’’ 

HISTORY: 

71 FR 7990 (Feb. 15, 2006). 

Philip S. Kaplan, 

Chief Privacy Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23204 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–17–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5997–N–66] 

30 Day Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection for Public Comment on the: 

Resident Opportunity and SelfSufficiency Service Coordinator 

(ROSS–SC) Program Evaluation 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: 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 comment from all interested 

parties on the proposed collection of 

information. The purpose of this notice 

is to allow for 30 days of public 

comment. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: November 

24, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: 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: 

HUD Desk Officer, Office of 

Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806, Email: 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

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 Guido at Anna.Guido@hud.gov or 

telephone 202–402–5535. Persons with 

hearing or speech impairments may 

access this number through TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. This is not a 

toll-free number. Copies of available 

documents submitted to OMB may be 

obtained from Ms. Guido. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice informs the public that HUD has 

submitted to OMB a request for 

approval of the information collection 

described in Section A. The Federal 

Register notice that solicited public 

comment on the information collection 

for a Period of 60 days was published 

on January 9, 2017 at 82 FR 2390. 

A. Overview of Information Collection 

Title of Information Collection: 

Resident Opportunity and SelfSufficiency Service Coordinator (ROSS– 

SC) Program Evaluation. 

OMB Approval Number: 2528–New. 

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, 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49412 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

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 1,244.50 hours 

and the total cost to be $32,856.28. 

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 2016) Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Occupational Employment Statistics 

median hourly wage for the labor 

category, Chief Executives (11–1011): 

$87.12. 

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 $31.10, and the 

Community and Social Service 

Specialists, All Other (21–1099) 

category with a rate of $20.73. 

This produces an average of both 

median hourly wage rates equal to 

$25.92. 

Respondent Occupation SOC code Median hourly 

wage rate 

Average 

(median) 

hourly wage 

rate 

Grantee Contact Person ................................. Chief Executive .............................................. 11–1011 $87.12 $87.12 

ROSS Service Coordinator & Partners .......... Social and Community Services Manager ..... 11–9151 $31.10 $25.92 

Community and Social Service Specialist, All 

Other.

21–1099 $20.73 ........................

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics (May 2016), 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 (31 respondents) with an 

average median income of $17,396. 

• 30% will reside in a 4-person 

household (31 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 2,080 work hours per 

year, equaling 40 hours per week for 

each of the 52 weeks out of the year. 

All assumptions are reflected in the 

table below. 

Information collection Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Burden hour 

per response 

Annual burden 

hours 

Hourly cost 

per response Total cost 

Grantee Contact Person Survey .............. 330.00 1.00 0.25 82.50 $87.12 $7,187.40 

Service Coordinators Survey ................... 1 840.00 1.00 1.00 840.00 25.92 21,772.80 

ROSS Site Visit—Staff and Partners ....... 56.00 1.00 2.00 112.00 25.92 2,903.04 

HUD Residents living alone ..................... 21.00 1.00 2.00 42.00 6.51 273.42 

HUD Residents in 2-person household ... 11.00 1.00 2.00 22.00 7.43 163.46 

HUD Residents in 3-person household ... 31.00 1.00 2.00 62.00 8.36 518.32 

HUD Residents in 4-person household ... 31.00 1.00 2.00 62.00 9.28 575.36 

HUD Residents in 5-person household ... 11.00 1.00 2.00 22.00 10.03 220.66 

Total .................................................. 1,331.00 ........................ ........................ 1,244.50 ........................ 33,614.46 

1The 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 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49413 

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. 

HUD encourages interested parties to 

submit comment in response to these 

questions. 

C. Authority 

Section 3507 of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35. 

Dated: October 17, 2017. 

Anna P. Guido, 

Department Reports Management Officer, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23188 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5997–N–69] 

30-Day Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: Congressional Earmarks 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: 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 comment from all interested 

parties on the proposed collection of 

information. The purpose of this notice 

is to allow for 30 days of public 

comment. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: November 

24, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: 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: 

HUD Desk Officer, Office of 

Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503; fax:202–395–5806, Email: 

OIRA Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anna P. Guido, Reports Management 

Officer, QMAC, 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. Person 

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. 

The Federal Register notice that 

solicited public comment on the 

information collection for a period of 60 

days was published on June 16, 2017 at 

81 FR 27719. 

A. Overview of Information Collection 

Title of Information Collection: 

Congressional Earmark. 

OMB Approval Number: 2506–0179. 

Type of Request: Reinstatement with 

change of a previously approved 

collection. 

Form Number: SF–424. 

Description of the need for the 

information and proposed use: The 

Department’s Office of Policy 

Development and Coordination 

administers congressionally mandated 

grants, known as earmarks. These 

projects have been identified in the 

annual appropriation of funds to the 

Department and in the accompanying 

conference reports or congressional 

record accompanying each 

appropriation. Earmarks generally fall 

into two categories: Economic 

Development Initiative-Special Project 

(EDI–SP) and Neighborhood Initiative 

(NI) grants. 

HUD’s Office of Policy Development 

and Coordination and its Environmental 

Officers in the field use this information 

to make funds available to entities 

directed to receive funds appropriated 

by Congress. This information is used to 

collect, receive, review and monitor 

program activities through applications, 

semi-annual reports, and close out 

reports. The information that is 

collected is used to assess performance. 

Grantees are units of state and local 

government, nonprofits and Indian 

tribes. Respondents are initially 

identified by congress and generally fall 

into two categories: Economic 

Development Initiative-Special Project 

(EDI–SP) grantees and Neighborhood 

Initiative (NI) grantees. The agency has 

used the application, semi-annual 

reports and close out reports to track 

grantee performance in the 

implementation of approved projects. 

Information collection Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Responses 

per annum 

Burden hour 

per response 

Annual burden 

hours 

Hourly cost 

per response Annual cost 

SF–425 ......................... 450.00 2.00 900.00 .50 450.00 $33.06 $14,877.00 

B. Solicitation of Public Comment 

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. 

HUD encourages interested parties to 

submit comment in response to these 

questions. 

Authority: Authority: Section 3507 of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35. 

Dated: October 17, 2017. 

Anna P. Guido, 

Department Reports Management Officer, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23185 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES