Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; the Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation Pilot Idea Template, 61753-61756 [2011-25651]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Notices
and additional monitoring; notifying
each worker of their exposure
monitoring results either in writing or
by posting; implementing a written
compliance program; and establishing a
respiratory protection program in
accordance with OSHA’s Respiratory
Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134).
II. Special Issues for Comment
OSHA has a particular interest in
comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information
collection requirements are necessary
for the proper performance of the
Agency’s functions, including whether
the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of
the burden (time and costs) of the
information collection requirements,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of
the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on
employers who must comply; for
example, by using automated or other
technological information collection
and transmission techniques.
III. Proposed Actions
OSHA is requesting an adjustment
decrease in burden hours from 35,739 to
20,558 (a total decrease of 15,181
hours). The adjustment is primarily due
to a decrease in covered workers.
Type of Review: Extension of a
Currently Approved Collection.
Title: Cotton Dust Standard (29 CFR
1910.1043).
OMB Number: 1218–0061.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofits; Federal Government; State,
Local or Tribal Government.
Number of Respondents: 281.
Frequency of Response: Annually;
semi-annually; on occasion.
Total Responses: 53,622.
Average Time per Response: Varies
from 5 minutes (.08 hour) for a secretary
to maintain a record to 2 hours to
conduct exposure monitoring.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
20,558.
Estimated Cost (Operation and
Maintenance): $2,449,194.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
IV. Public Participation—Submission of
Comments on this Notice and Internet
Access to Comments and Submissions
You may submit comments in
response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by
facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other
material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
ICR (Docket No. OSHA–2011–0194).
You may supplement electronic
submissions by uploading document
files electronically. If you wish to mail
additional materials in reference to an
electronic or facsimile submission, you
must submit them to the OSHA Docket
Office (see the section of this notice
titled ADDRESSES). The additional
materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name,
date, and the docket number so the
Agency can attach them to your
comments.
Because of security procedures, the
use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of
comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the
delivery of materials by hand, express
delivery, messenger, or courier service,
please contact the OSHA Docket Office
at (202) 693–2350, (TTY (877) 889–
5627).
Comments and submissions are
posted without change at https://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA
cautions commenters about submitting
personal information such as social
security numbers and dates of birth.
Although all submissions are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov index,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through this Web site.
All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is
available at the Web site’s ‘‘User Tips’’
link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office
for information about materials not
available through the Web site and for
assistance in using the Internet to locate
docket submissions.
V. Authority and Signature
David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the
preparation of this notice. The authority
for this notice is the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
et seq.) and Secretary of Labor’s Order
No. 4–2010 (75 FR 55355).
Signed at Washington, DC, on September
30, 2011.
David Michaels, PhD, MPH,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011–25664 Filed 10–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61753
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; the Partnership
Fund for Program Integrity Innovation
Pilot Idea Template
Office of Management and
Budget.
ACTION: Notice and request for public
comments.
AGENCY:
The Office of Federal
Financial Management (OFFM) within
the Office of Management and Budget is
proposing for approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et. Seq.) the attached
template for pilot idea summaries
submitted to the Partnership Fund for
Program Integrity Innovation
(Partnership Fund). This notice
announces that OFFM intends to submit
this collection to OMB for approval and
solicits comments on specific aspects
for the proposed collection. The first
notice of this information collection
request, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act, was published in the
Federal Register on June 6, 2011 [76 FR
32375]. There were no comments on the
first notice.
The Partnership Fund seeks to
identify pilot projects to improve the
service delivery, payment accuracy, and
administrative efficiency of stateadministered Federal assistance
programs, while also reducing access
barriers for eligible beneficiaries.
The proposed pilot idea summary
template is intended for use by those
wishing to submit pilot ideas for
consideration. It outlines the specific
information required by the Partnership
Fund to make informed decisions in the
pilot selection process. Pilot ideas to
advance the Partnership Fund’s goals
are being solicited from all stakeholders,
including the general public. The
template is currently in use by Federal
agencies based on OMB guidance. If
approved under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, it will be used to solicit
ideas from stakeholders outside the
Federal government both as a general
template and as an online form for idea
solicitations through the Partnership
Fund web site, https://www.partner4
solutions.gov. Currently, general ideas
may be submitted via e-mail to
partner4solutions@omb.eop.gov, or
through https://www.partner4
solutions.gov. The Partnership Fund is
funded through FY 2012 and will
continue to accept pilot idea proposals
on a rolling basis until funding is
exhausted. The Partnership Fund must
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
61754
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Notices
comply with a statutory requirement
that all pilot projects, when taken
together, be cost neutral.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
November 4, 2011. Late comments will
be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Due to potential delays in
OMB’s receipt and processing of mail
sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we
encourage respondents to submit
comments electronically to ensure
timely receipt. We cannot guarantee that
comments mailed will be received
before the comment closing date.
Comments may be e-mailed to:
mmassey@omb.eop.gov and/or FNOMB-OIRA-Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Please include the full body of your
comments in the text of the electronic
message, as well as in an attachment.
Please include your name, title,
organization, postal address, telephone
number, and e-mail address in the text
of the message. Comments may also be
submitted via facsimile to (202) 395–
3242.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Please visit our web site at
www.partner4solutions.gov or contact
Meg Massey at (202) 395–7552 or
mmassey@omb.eop.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
The Partnership Fund for Program
Integrity Innovation (Partnership Fund)
was established by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111–117). An appropriation of $32.5
million 1 provides money to pilot and
evaluate promising innovations that
confront these challenges in Federal,
state and/or local administration. The
purpose of the Partnership Fund is to
identify and evaluate innovations in
programs jointly administered by
Federal and state agencies and in other
program areas where Federal-state
cooperation would be beneficial. OMB
coordinates and manages the
Partnership Fund for the purpose of
conducting pilot projects that test these
innovations. The pilots will emphasize
the Partnership Fund’s four goals:
service delivery, program integrity,
administrative efficiency, and program
access.
Ideas submitted by the public are
shared with the Collaborative Forum, a
self-directed stakeholder group (https://
www.collaborativeforumonline.com)
established to fulfill the statutory
1 The initial FY 2010 appropriation for the
Partnership Fund was for $37.5 million. This
appropriation has been reduced to $32.5 million
due to a $5 million rescission in Public Law 112–
10.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
requirement that the OMB Director
consult with an ‘‘interagency council of
stakeholders’’ in determining which
pilots will receive Partnership Fund
funding. The Collaborative Forum
identifies pilot ideas that show the
greatest potential for meeting the
Partnership Fund’s four goals and
convenes work groups to further
develop these ideas into feasible,
measurable pilot concepts. Collaborative
Forum work groups include state and
other stakeholders with relevant
expertise. Work groups produce pilot
concept papers describing the goals,
methods, resource requirements, and
anticipated outcomes of proposed
pilots. Ideas sent to the Collaborative
Forum may be developed into pilot
concept papers to send to OMB for
funding consideration.
Federal agencies may also develop
ideas into pilot concept papers that are
shared with the Collaborative Forum for
consultation. Pilot concepts are then
submitted for funding approval by
OMB, which takes into account the
consultation provided by the
Collaborative Forum and by the
Partnership Fund’s Federal Steering
Committee, which consists of senior
policy officials from Federal agencies
that administer the major benefits
programs.
Funds for each approved pilot
concept are transferred to a lead Federal
agency, which in turn selects specific
states, localities, and/or other relevant
entities to participate in the pilot by
implementing specific pilot projects
using pilot funds. The lead agency also
conducts a cost-effective evaluation of
the pilot projects. Based on evaluation
findings, successful pilots will serve as
models for other states and local
agencies. Evaluation results may also be
used to inform future administrative or
legislative changes to the affected
programs, including broader
implementation of the innovations
tested.
Examples of Programs and Pilots:
Examples of Federally funded, stateadministered assistance programs
relevant to the goals of the Partnership
Fund are listed below. Other programs
will also be included in concept idea
submissions.
• Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC)
• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP—formerly Food
Stamps)
• Medicaid
• Unemployment Insurance (UI)
• Child Welfare
• Child Care
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF)
Examples of the types of pilots that
could be supported include:
• Pilots that simplify or streamline
processes for application, eligibility
determination, and confirmation of
continued eligibility
• Pilots that promote or utilize data
matching and information sharing
across programs
• Pilots that test integrated
applications, screening, and verification
for multiple benefit programs
Components of an ideal pilot are
listed below. Not every pilot concept
considered for funding will meet all of
these criteria, and the size and scope of
the pilot projects funded may vary
widely:
• Yield reliable data that can be
captured in the pilot evaluation to
suggest replication or expansion and
demonstrate how successfully the pilot
meets the Partnership Fund’s four goals
• Have the potential to be replicated
and sustained on a larger scale
• Address multiple elements of the
Partnership Fund’s four goals
• Address multiple programs and/or
otherwise bridge organizational silos
• Yield measurable results in nine to
18 months
• Support the statutory requirement
that Partnership Fund pilot projects be
cost neutral when looked at as a whole
Current Actions: New collection of
information.
Type of Review: New collection.
Affected Public: Individuals and
households, businesses and
organizations, State, Local, or Tribal
Government.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
300.
Frequency of Response: We expect
that most respondents will use the form
to submit one idea, while some
respondents may submit more than one
idea.
Average minutes per response: 2
hours.
Burden Hours: 600.
Needs and Uses: The template is
currently being used by Federal
agencies, per OMB guidance, to submit
pilot ideas to the Partnership Fund for
Program Integrity Innovation, and as a
useful reference for other organizations
or individuals wishing to submit pilot
ideas. If approved, the template will be
made available for use by all agencies,
individuals, and organizations wishing
to submit pilot concept proposals for
consideration.
Obligation to respond: Voluntary.
However, if Federal agencies wish to
pursue a pilot through the Partnership
Fund, they should use this template.
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Notices
Nature and extent of confidentiality:
All pilot ideas submitted to the
Partnership Fund may be posted on the
Collaborative Forum web site, https://
www.collaborativeforumonline.com, for
comment and feedback. Individuals and
organizations that submit ideas,
regardless of whether they elect to use
the template, may submit contact
information if they wish to be contacted
by the Collaborative Forum about their
idea. Contact information, if submitted,
will not be shared or used for any other
purpose.
Privacy Impact Assessment: All ideas
submitted to the Partnership Fund may
be posted on the Collaborative Forum
web site for comment and feedback. The
template makes clear that the ideas
submitted will be shared.
Requests for Comments: Comments
submitted in response to this notice will
be summarized and/or included in the
request for OMB approval. Comments
are invited on: (a) Whether the
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology;
and (e) estimates of capital or start-up
costs and costs of operation,
maintenance, and purchase of services
to provide information. Burden means
the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal
agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; to develop,
acquire, install and utilize technology
and systems for the purpose of
collecting, validating and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; to train
personnel and to be able to respond to
a collection of information, to search
data sources, to complete and review
the collection of information; and to
transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
All written comments will be
available for public inspection on
Regulations.gov.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
Office of Management and Budget
control number.
Debra J. Bond,
Deputy Controller.
Partnership Fund for Program Integrity
Innovation Template Instructions for
Pilot Idea Summary
The first step in the Partnership Fund
pilot selection process is the submission
of a pilot idea summary. Pilot idea
summaries may be submitted by anyone
through the partner4solutions.gov
website, https://
www.partner4solutions.gov, or the
partner4solutions@omb.eop.gov email
address. Pilot ideas may be sent to an
independent Collaborative Forum for
further development into more detailed
concept papers. OMB consults with the
Federal Steering Committee in selecting
pilot concepts and making funding
decisions.
Below are instructions for completing
a pilot idea summary. Completed pilot
idea summaries should not be more
than two pages in length.
PARTNERSHIP FUND FOR PROGRAM
INTEGRITY INNOVATION
PILOT IDEA: Name of Pilot Idea
1. Pilot Idea: Summarize the idea in
2–3 sentences.
2. Programs Affected:
• Which programs are affected, either
directly or indirectly? Ideally, an
idea would address multiple
programs and bridge multiple
programmatic silos.
• Are these federal, state, and/or
local programs? An ideal
submission would involve multiple
states and/or communities in the
development or eventual
implementation of a pilot.
3. Measurable Impacts: How does the
pilot impact each of the four goals of the
Partnership Fund? A pilot should
address as many of these goals as
possible across multiple programs or
test a solution that could later be
applied to multiple programs.
(a) Improving payment accuracy
(b) Improving administrative
efficiency
(c) Improving service delivery
(d) Reducing access barriers for
eligible beneficiaries
4. Expected Outcomes and
Measurement Methodologies:
• What are the expectations and
measures of success in relation to
the four goals?
• What are the possible quantitative
and qualitative measures?
• Could these outcomes be
extrapolated to a larger
environment?
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61755
5. Potential Partners or Sponsors:
• Which stakeholders and/or key
organizations are involved?
• Does the proposed pilot have
sufficient stakeholder buy-in?
Stakeholders could include federal,
state, and local governments, and
non-governmental organizations.
6. Estimated Operating Cost of Pilot:
• How much would the pilot cost to
implement?
• Are there resources of matching or
leveraged funds that could be used
to support this pilot?
• Is the Partnership Fund the most
appropriate funding source for the
pilot? All pilot ideas will be
considered, but the Partnership
Fund is targeting ideas that attempt
to cut across multiple programs
with multiple objectives, but have
struggled to gain footing in existing
program silos.
7. Estimated Impact on Program Costs:
• What are the anticipated costs and/
or savings for the various programs
involved in the pilot?
• If the pilot were to be scaled up,
what are the anticipated costs/
savings? Pilot ideas that increase
program costs will be considered,
but the Partnership Fund must
comply with our statutory
requirement to maintain overall
cost neutrality.
8. Pilot Implementation Issues:
• Is this pilot idea ready for
immediate implementation, or does
it require further refinement?
• What is the timeframe in which the
pilot would be conducted? The
target time period for conducting
the first round of pilots is nine-18
months.
• What are possible implementation
barriers (e.g., privacy issues)?
• Is this pilot scalable? Successful
ideas will demonstrate strong
external validity and scalability.
• Could this pilot be implemented
under existing legislative
authorities or mechanisms?
• Are any administrative waivers
required?
PARTNERSHIP FUND FOR PROGRAM
INTEGRITY INNOVATION
PILOT IDEA SUMMARY: Name of Pilot
Idea
1. Pilot Idea:
2. Programs Affected:
3. Measurable Impacts:
(a) Improving payment accuracy
(b) Improving administrative
efficiency
(c) Improving service delivery
(d) Reducing access barriers for
beneficiaries
4. Expected Outcomes and
Measurement Methodologies:
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
61756
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Notices
5. Potential Partners or Sponsors:
6. Estimated Operating Cost of Pilot:
7. Estimated Impact on Program Costs:
8. Pilot Implementation Issues:
[FR Doc. 2011–25651 Filed 10–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
Final Guidance on Appointment of
Lobbyists to Federal Boards and
Commissions
Office of Management and
Budget.
ACTION: Notice of Final Guidance.
AGENCY:
The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) is issuing final
guidance to Executive Departments and
agencies concerning the appointment of
federally registered lobbyists to boards
and commissions. On June 18, 2010,
President Obama issued ‘‘Lobbyists on
Agency Boards and Commissions,’’ a
memorandum directing agencies and
departments in the Executive Branch
not to appoint or re-appoint federally
registered lobbyists to advisory
committees and other boards and
commissions. The Presidential
Memorandum further directed the
Director of OMB to ‘‘issue proposed
guidance to implement this policy to the
full extent permitted by law.’’ Proposed
guidance was posted on November 2,
2010 and the final guidance was
formulated after review of the comments
received to the proposed guidance. The
Presidential Memorandum is available
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/presidential-memorandumlobbyists-agency-boards-andcommissions.
DATES: Effective Date: The final
guidance will be effective 30 days from
the date of issuance in the Federal
Register.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
A. Final Guidance
On June 18, 2010, President Obama
signed a Presidential Memorandum
directing agencies in the Executive
Branch not to appoint or re-appoint
federally registered lobbyists to advisory
committees and other boards and
commissions. That memorandum
directed the Office of Management and
Budget to propose implementing
guidance, which follows in the form of
questions and answers:
Q1: Who is affected by the policy directed
in the June 18, 2010 Presidential
Memorandum (the ‘‘Memorandum’’)?
A1: This policy applies to federally
registered lobbyists and does not apply to
individuals who are registered as lobbyists
only at the state level. A lobbyist for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
purposes of the Memorandum is any
individual who is subject to the registration
and reporting requirements of the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA), as amended,
2 U.S.C. 1605, at the time of appointment or
reappointment to an advisory board or
commission. Agencies may rely on
appropriate searches of databases maintained
by the House of Representatives and the
Senate in identifying federally registered
lobbyists.1 Alternatively, agencies may
consider including in their recruitment
process for appointing members a way of
obtaining written certification from the
individual that he or she is not a federally
registered lobbyist.
Any individual who previously served as
a federally registered lobbyist may be
appointed or re-appointed only if he or she
has either filed a bona fide de-registration or
has been de-listed by his or her employer as
an active lobbyist reflecting the actual
cessation of lobbying activities or if they have
not appeared on a quarterly lobbying report
for three consecutive quarters as a result of
their actual cessation of lobbying activities.
Q2: Does the policy restrict the
appointment of individuals who are
themselves not federally registered lobbyists
but are employed by organizations that
engage in lobbying activities?
A2: No, the policy established by the
Memorandum applies only to federally
registered lobbyists and does not apply to
non-lobbyists employed by organizations that
lobby.
Q3: What entities constitute ‘‘boards and
commissions’’ under the policy?
A3: The policy directed in the
Memorandum applies to any committee,
board, commission, council, delegation,
conference, panel, task force, or other similar
group (or subgroup) created by the President,
the Congress, or an Executive Branch
department or agency to serve a specific
function to which appointment is required,
regardless of whether it is subject to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. App.). Appointment
includes appointment required or permitted
by law or regulation, including appointment
at the discretion of the department or agency.
Additionally, the ban also applies to
established workgroups and subcommittees
for boards and commissions, which may or
may not require formal appointment.
Q4: Does the policy apply to non-Federal
members of delegations to international
bodies?
A4: Yes, delegations organized to present
the United States’ position to international
bodies are considered to be boards or
commissions for the purposes of this policy,
regardless of whether they constitute
advisory committees for purposes of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. App.). Therefore, agencies
should not appoint federally registered
lobbyists to these delegations.
Q5: Which ‘‘members’’ of those boards and
commissions are covered by the policy?
1 Lobbying Disclosure, Office of the Clerk, U.S.
House of Representatives: https://
lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov; LDA Reports, U.S.
Senate: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/
Public_Disclosure/LDA_reports.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A5: The policy applies to all members of
boards and commissions who are not fulltime Federal employees, including both those
who have been designated to serve in a
representative capacity on behalf of an
interested group or constituency and those
who have been designated to serve as Special
Government Employees, and who are
appointed by the President or an Executive
Branch agency or official. However, the
policy is not intended to be inconsistent with
provisions of Federal law or international
agreements. Accordingly, even where
provisions exist that allow private
organizations to designate their
representatives or require their consultation
on appointments, the appointing authority
should, to the extent permissible by law,
require such organizations to agree to the
appointment of individuals who are not
federally registered lobbyists.
Members of boards and commissions do
not include individuals who are invited to
attend meetings of boards or commissions on
an ad hoc basis.
Q6: How does the policy apply if a statute
or presidential directive provides for
appointments to be made by State Governors
or by members of Congress?
A6: While the discretion of appointing
authorities outside of the Executive Branch
will be respected, those appointing
authorities should be encouraged to appoint
individuals who are not federally registered
lobbyists whenever possible.
Q7: How does the policy apply when a
statute or presidential directive requires the
appointment of a specific representative from
an organization and that representative is a
federally registered lobbyist?
A7: The policy does not supersede board
or commission membership requirements
established by statute or presidential
directive. However, committee charters in
effect at the time of the new policy that
require a lobbyist to be appointed as a
member of the committee should, wherever
possible and at the earliest possible time, be
amended to conform to the policy, consistent
with statutes and presidential directives.
Q8: How will the guidance affect lobbyists
who were serving on boards and
commissions at the time the policy was
established?
A8: The prohibition on the appointment of
federally registered lobbyists to boards and
commissions established by the
Memorandum applies to appointments and
re-appointments made after June 18, 2010. In
order to ensure that there is no disruption of
ongoing work of boards and commissions,
federally registered lobbyists who already
were serving on boards and commissions on
that date may serve out the remainder of their
terms, but may not be reappointed so long as
they remain registered lobbyists.
Q9: Does this policy also restrict the
participation of lobbyists as members of a
subcommittee or other work group that
performs preparatory work for its parent
board or commission?
A9: Yes, the policy does not permit the
appointment of federally registered lobbyists
to a subcommittee or any other subgroup that
performs preparatory work for a parent board
or commission, whether or not its members
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61753-61756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25651]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; the Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation
Pilot Idea Template
AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget.
ACTION: Notice and request for public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM) within the
Office of Management and Budget is proposing for approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. Seq.) the attached
template for pilot idea summaries submitted to the Partnership Fund for
Program Integrity Innovation (Partnership Fund). This notice announces
that OFFM intends to submit this collection to OMB for approval and
solicits comments on specific aspects for the proposed collection. The
first notice of this information collection request, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act, was published in the Federal Register on June
6, 2011 [76 FR 32375]. There were no comments on the first notice.
The Partnership Fund seeks to identify pilot projects to improve
the service delivery, payment accuracy, and administrative efficiency
of state-administered Federal assistance programs, while also reducing
access barriers for eligible beneficiaries.
The proposed pilot idea summary template is intended for use by
those wishing to submit pilot ideas for consideration. It outlines the
specific information required by the Partnership Fund to make informed
decisions in the pilot selection process. Pilot ideas to advance the
Partnership Fund's goals are being solicited from all stakeholders,
including the general public. The template is currently in use by
Federal agencies based on OMB guidance. If approved under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, it will be used to solicit ideas from stakeholders
outside the Federal government both as a general template and as an
online form for idea solicitations through the Partnership Fund web
site, https://www.partner4solutions.gov. Currently, general ideas may be
submitted via e-mail to partner4solutions@omb.eop.gov, or through
https://www.partner4solutions.gov. The Partnership Fund is funded
through FY 2012 and will continue to accept pilot idea proposals on a
rolling basis until funding is exhausted. The Partnership Fund must
[[Page 61754]]
comply with a statutory requirement that all pilot projects, when taken
together, be cost neutral.
DATES: Submit comments on or before November 4, 2011. Late comments
will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of
mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to
submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. We cannot
guarantee that comments mailed will be received before the comment
closing date.
Comments may be e-mailed to: mmassey@omb.eop.gov and/or FN-OMB-OIRA-Submission@omb.eop.gov. Please include the full body of your
comments in the text of the electronic message, as well as in an
attachment. Please include your name, title, organization, postal
address, telephone number, and e-mail address in the text of the
message. Comments may also be submitted via facsimile to (202) 395-
3242.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please visit our web site at
www.partner4solutions.gov or contact Meg Massey at (202) 395-7552 or
mmassey@omb.eop.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation (Partnership
Fund) was established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010
(Pub. L. 111-117). An appropriation of $32.5 million \1\ provides money
to pilot and evaluate promising innovations that confront these
challenges in Federal, state and/or local administration. The purpose
of the Partnership Fund is to identify and evaluate innovations in
programs jointly administered by Federal and state agencies and in
other program areas where Federal-state cooperation would be
beneficial. OMB coordinates and manages the Partnership Fund for the
purpose of conducting pilot projects that test these innovations. The
pilots will emphasize the Partnership Fund's four goals: service
delivery, program integrity, administrative efficiency, and program
access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The initial FY 2010 appropriation for the Partnership Fund
was for $37.5 million. This appropriation has been reduced to $32.5
million due to a $5 million rescission in Public Law 112-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideas submitted by the public are shared with the Collaborative
Forum, a self-directed stakeholder group (https://www.collaborativeforumonline.com) established to fulfill the statutory
requirement that the OMB Director consult with an ``interagency council
of stakeholders'' in determining which pilots will receive Partnership
Fund funding. The Collaborative Forum identifies pilot ideas that show
the greatest potential for meeting the Partnership Fund's four goals
and convenes work groups to further develop these ideas into feasible,
measurable pilot concepts. Collaborative Forum work groups include
state and other stakeholders with relevant expertise. Work groups
produce pilot concept papers describing the goals, methods, resource
requirements, and anticipated outcomes of proposed pilots. Ideas sent
to the Collaborative Forum may be developed into pilot concept papers
to send to OMB for funding consideration.
Federal agencies may also develop ideas into pilot concept papers
that are shared with the Collaborative Forum for consultation. Pilot
concepts are then submitted for funding approval by OMB, which takes
into account the consultation provided by the Collaborative Forum and
by the Partnership Fund's Federal Steering Committee, which consists of
senior policy officials from Federal agencies that administer the major
benefits programs.
Funds for each approved pilot concept are transferred to a lead
Federal agency, which in turn selects specific states, localities, and/
or other relevant entities to participate in the pilot by implementing
specific pilot projects using pilot funds. The lead agency also
conducts a cost-effective evaluation of the pilot projects. Based on
evaluation findings, successful pilots will serve as models for other
states and local agencies. Evaluation results may also be used to
inform future administrative or legislative changes to the affected
programs, including broader implementation of the innovations tested.
Examples of Programs and Pilots: Examples of Federally funded,
state-administered assistance programs relevant to the goals of the
Partnership Fund are listed below. Other programs will also be included
in concept idea submissions.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants
and Children (WIC)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP--formerly
Food Stamps)
Medicaid
Unemployment Insurance (UI)
Child Welfare
Child Care
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Examples of the types of pilots that could be supported include:
Pilots that simplify or streamline processes for
application, eligibility determination, and confirmation of continued
eligibility
Pilots that promote or utilize data matching and
information sharing across programs
Pilots that test integrated applications, screening, and
verification for multiple benefit programs
Components of an ideal pilot are listed below. Not every pilot
concept considered for funding will meet all of these criteria, and the
size and scope of the pilot projects funded may vary widely:
Yield reliable data that can be captured in the pilot
evaluation to suggest replication or expansion and demonstrate how
successfully the pilot meets the Partnership Fund's four goals
Have the potential to be replicated and sustained on a
larger scale
Address multiple elements of the Partnership Fund's four
goals
Address multiple programs and/or otherwise bridge
organizational silos
Yield measurable results in nine to 18 months
Support the statutory requirement that Partnership Fund
pilot projects be cost neutral when looked at as a whole
Current Actions: New collection of information.
Type of Review: New collection.
Affected Public: Individuals and households, businesses and
organizations, State, Local, or Tribal Government.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 300.
Frequency of Response: We expect that most respondents will use the
form to submit one idea, while some respondents may submit more than
one idea.
Average minutes per response: 2 hours.
Burden Hours: 600.
Needs and Uses: The template is currently being used by Federal
agencies, per OMB guidance, to submit pilot ideas to the Partnership
Fund for Program Integrity Innovation, and as a useful reference for
other organizations or individuals wishing to submit pilot ideas. If
approved, the template will be made available for use by all agencies,
individuals, and organizations wishing to submit pilot concept
proposals for consideration.
Obligation to respond: Voluntary. However, if Federal agencies wish
to pursue a pilot through the Partnership Fund, they should use this
template.
[[Page 61755]]
Nature and extent of confidentiality: All pilot ideas submitted to
the Partnership Fund may be posted on the Collaborative Forum web site,
https://www.collaborativeforumonline.com, for comment and feedback.
Individuals and organizations that submit ideas, regardless of whether
they elect to use the template, may submit contact information if they
wish to be contacted by the Collaborative Forum about their idea.
Contact information, if submitted, will not be shared or used for any
other purpose.
Privacy Impact Assessment: All ideas submitted to the Partnership
Fund may be posted on the Collaborative Forum web site for comment and
feedback. The template makes clear that the ideas submitted will be
shared.
Requests for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this
notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB
approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs
and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to
provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose
or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and
utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; to train
personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to
search data sources, to complete and review the collection of
information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
All written comments will be available for public inspection on
Regulations.gov.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Debra J. Bond,
Deputy Controller.
Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation Template Instructions
for Pilot Idea Summary
The first step in the Partnership Fund pilot selection process is
the submission of a pilot idea summary. Pilot idea summaries may be
submitted by anyone through the partner4solutions.gov website, https://www.partner4solutions.gov, or the partner4solutions@omb.eop.gov email
address. Pilot ideas may be sent to an independent Collaborative Forum
for further development into more detailed concept papers. OMB consults
with the Federal Steering Committee in selecting pilot concepts and
making funding decisions.
Below are instructions for completing a pilot idea summary.
Completed pilot idea summaries should not be more than two pages in
length.
PARTNERSHIP FUND FOR PROGRAM INTEGRITY INNOVATION
PILOT IDEA: Name of Pilot Idea
1. Pilot Idea: Summarize the idea in 2-3 sentences.
2. Programs Affected:
Which programs are affected, either directly or
indirectly? Ideally, an idea would address multiple programs and bridge
multiple programmatic silos.
Are these federal, state, and/or local programs? An ideal
submission would involve multiple states and/or communities in the
development or eventual implementation of a pilot.
3. Measurable Impacts: How does the pilot impact each of the four goals
of the Partnership Fund? A pilot should address as many of these goals
as possible across multiple programs or test a solution that could
later be applied to multiple programs.
(a) Improving payment accuracy
(b) Improving administrative efficiency
(c) Improving service delivery
(d) Reducing access barriers for eligible beneficiaries
4. Expected Outcomes and Measurement Methodologies:
What are the expectations and measures of success in
relation to the four goals?
What are the possible quantitative and qualitative
measures?
Could these outcomes be extrapolated to a larger
environment?
5. Potential Partners or Sponsors:
Which stakeholders and/or key organizations are involved?
Does the proposed pilot have sufficient stakeholder buy-
in? Stakeholders could include federal, state, and local governments,
and non-governmental organizations.
6. Estimated Operating Cost of Pilot:
How much would the pilot cost to implement?
Are there resources of matching or leveraged funds that
could be used to support this pilot?
Is the Partnership Fund the most appropriate funding
source for the pilot? All pilot ideas will be considered, but the
Partnership Fund is targeting ideas that attempt to cut across multiple
programs with multiple objectives, but have struggled to gain footing
in existing program silos.
7. Estimated Impact on Program Costs:
What are the anticipated costs and/or savings for the
various programs involved in the pilot?
If the pilot were to be scaled up, what are the
anticipated costs/savings? Pilot ideas that increase program costs will
be considered, but the Partnership Fund must comply with our statutory
requirement to maintain overall cost neutrality.
8. Pilot Implementation Issues:
Is this pilot idea ready for immediate implementation, or
does it require further refinement?
What is the timeframe in which the pilot would be
conducted? The target time period for conducting the first round of
pilots is nine-18 months.
What are possible implementation barriers (e.g., privacy
issues)?
Is this pilot scalable? Successful ideas will demonstrate
strong external validity and scalability.
Could this pilot be implemented under existing legislative
authorities or mechanisms?
Are any administrative waivers required?
PARTNERSHIP FUND FOR PROGRAM INTEGRITY INNOVATION
PILOT IDEA SUMMARY: Name of Pilot Idea
1. Pilot Idea:
2. Programs Affected:
3. Measurable Impacts:
(a) Improving payment accuracy
(b) Improving administrative efficiency
(c) Improving service delivery
(d) Reducing access barriers for beneficiaries
4. Expected Outcomes and Measurement Methodologies:
[[Page 61756]]
5. Potential Partners or Sponsors:
6. Estimated Operating Cost of Pilot:
7. Estimated Impact on Program Costs:
8. Pilot Implementation Issues:
[FR Doc. 2011-25651 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
