Attchment FFFF 30 day FRN 02.27.2012 CP17C7

Save As...

Reset

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Notices
Suspension, 2 CFR part 180 (collectively
the ‘‘Debarment Regulations’’) for a
period of one (1) year, beginning on
February 6, 2012;
(2) To have his research supervised
for a period of two (2) years
immediately following the one (1) year
period of exclusion; Respondent agrees
that prior to the submission of an
application for U.S. Public Health
Service (PHS) support for a research
project on which the Respondent’s
participation is proposed and prior to
the Respondent’s participation in any
capacity on PHS-supported research,
Respondent shall ensure that a plan for
supervision of Respondent’s duties is
submitted to ORI for approval; the
supervision plan must be designed to
ensure the scientific integrity of
Respondent’s research contribution as
outlined below; Respondent agrees that
he shall not participate in any PHSsupported research until such a
supervision plan is submitted to and
approved by ORI; Respondent agrees to
maintain responsibility for compliance
with the agreed upon supervision plan;
the requirements for Respondent’s
supervision plan are as follows:
i. A committee of 2–3 senior faculty
members at the institution who are
familiar with Respondent’s field of
research, but not including
Respondent’s supervisor or
collaborators, will provide oversight and
guidance for two (2) years immediately
following the period of exclusion; the
committee will review primary data
from Respondent’s laboratory on a
quarterly basis and submit a report to
ORI at six (6) month intervals setting
forth the committee meeting dates,
Respondent’s compliance with
appropriate research standards, and
confirming the integrity of Respondent’s
research; and
ii. The committee will conduct an
advance review of any PHS grant
applications (including supplements,
resubmissions, etc.), manuscripts
reporting PHS-funded research
submitted for publication, and abstracts;
the review will include a discussion
with Respondent of the primary data
represented in those documents and
include a certification to ORI that the
data presented in the proposed
application/publication is supported by
the research record;
(3) That any institution employing
him during the two (2) years during
which the supervisory plan is in effect
shall submit, in conjunction with each
application for PHS funds, or report,
manuscript, or abstract involving PHSsupported research in which
Respondent is involved, a certification
to ORI that the data provided by

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:10 Feb 24, 2012

Save As...

Jkt 226001

Respondent are based on actual
experiments or are otherwise
legitimately derived and that the data,
procedures, and methodology are
accurately reported in the application,
report, manuscript, or abstract; and
(4) To exclude himself from serving in
any advisory capacity to PHS including,
but not limited to, service on any PHS
advisory committee, board, and/or peer
review committee, or as a consultant for
a period of three (3) years, beginning on
February 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Director, Division of Investigative
Oversight, Office of Research Integrity,
1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750,
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453–8800.
John Dahlberg,
Director, Division of Investigative Oversight,
Office of Research Integrity.
[FR Doc. 2012–4366 Filed 2–24–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150–31–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
[30Day–12–11JD]

Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork
Reduction Act Review
The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of
information collection requests under
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). To request a copy of these
requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance
Officer at (404) 639–7570 or send an
email to [email protected]. Send written
comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395–5806.
Written comments should be received
within 30 days of this notice.
Proposed Project
Evaluation of Dating Matters:
Strategies to Promote Healthy Teen
RelationshipsTM—New—National
Center for Injury Prevention and
Control—Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
Background and Brief Description
Dating Matters: Strategies to Promote
Healthy Teen RelationshipsTM is the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s new teen dating violence
prevention initiative.
Recently, efforts to prevent teen
dating violence (TDV) have grown,
particularly in schools, among

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

11539

policymakers, and among sexual
violence and domestic violence
coalitions. Now many states and
communities also are working to stop
teen dating violence. However, these
activities vary greatly in quality and
effectiveness. To address the gaps, CDC
has developed Dating Matters, a teen
dating violence prevention program that
includes programming for students,
parents, educators, as well as policy
development. Dating Matters is based on
the current evidence about what works
in prevention and focuses on high-risk,
urban communities where participants
include: Middle school students age 11
to 14 years; middle school parents;
brand ambassadors; educators; school
leadership; program implementers;
community representatives; and local
health department representatives in the
following communities: Alameda
County, California; Baltimore,
Maryland; Broward County, Florida;
and Chicago, Illinois.
The primary goal of the current
proposal is to conduct an outcome and
implementation evaluation of Dating
Matters in the four metropolitan cities to
determine its feasibility, cost, and
effectiveness. In the evaluation a
standard model of TDV prevention (Safe
Dates administered in 8th grade) will be
compared to a comprehensive model
(programs administered in 6th, 7th, and
8th grade as well as parent, educator,
policy, and communications
interventions).
Burden estimates are based on the
following information:
• Number of communities/sites: 4
• Number of schools across 4
communities/sites: 44 (12 in 3
communities, 8 in 1 community)
• Number of students in each middle
school: 600 (200 per grade)
• Number of school staff in each
school: 40
• Number of schools implementing
the standard model of TDV prevention:
22 (across 4 sites/communities)
• Number of schools implementing
the comprehensive model of TDV
prevention: 22 (across 4 sites/
communities)
Population. The study population
includes students in 6th, 7th and 8th
grades at 44 schools in the four
participating sites. At most, schools are
expected to have 6 classrooms per
grade, with an average of 30 students
per classroom yielding a population of
23,760 students (44 schools * 3 grades
* 6 classrooms per grade * 30 students
per classroom).
The sampling frame for parents, given
that we would only include one parent
per student, is also 23,760 for the three
years of data collection covered by this

E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM

27FEN1

Save As...

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11540

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Notices

package. Based on our research and
consultation with middle schools, most
schools with 600 students have
approximately 40 staff. If we assume 40
educators per school, the sampling
frame for the educator sample is 1,760.
The following are explanations of
estimated burden by respondent:
Students: The study will survey
samples of classrooms from all three
middle school grade levels in the 44
schools, annually over a 4 year data
collection period (see Figure 2). (Please
note that we recognize that our OMB
approval will expire after 3 years and
we will submit a new package at that
time so that the life of the project is
approved.) In each year of data
collection, we will recruit 30 students
per classroom * a sample of 4
classrooms per grade * 3 grades * 44
schools, resulting in a student sample of
15,840. We assume a 95% participation
rate (n = 15,048) for the baseline student
survey (due to students being absent
and parents not providing consent for
student participation). Because this is a
longitudinal data collection, the midterm and follow-up surveys will lose
some students due to attrition (e.g.,
students absent; students move out of
district; parents withdraw permission).
At mid-term, we assume a retention rate
of 92.5% of the 15,840 students (n =
14,652), and at follow-up (at the end of
the school year), we assume a retention
rate of 90% of the 15,840 students (n =
14,256).
Parents: We will recruit parents of
17% of the student sample (15,840)
inclusive of parents participating in the
parent curricula, and those who choose
not to participate in the parent
curricula, from both the Dating Matters
schools and the standard-of-care
schools. We will recruit a sample of
17% of eligible parents per grade per
school for a total of 2,693 parents.
Assuming 90% of the 2,693 parents
agree to participate at baseline (n =
2,424) and we retain 90% of
participating parents from baseline, we
will have a final follow-up sample of
2,181 parents.
Educators: We will attempt to recruit
all educators in each school (44 schools
* 40 educators per school = 1,760), who
are assumed to stay in their positions
over the study period (in contrast to the
cohorts of students moving through the
school). We expect a 90% participation
rate for an estimated sample of 1,584
educators.
School data extractors: We will
attempt to recruit one data extractor per
44 schools to extract school data to be

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:10 Feb 24, 2012

Save As...

Jkt 226001

used in conjunction with the outcome
data for the students. Individual level
school data will only be collected for
students participating in the evaluation,
so this data will reflect the same
sampling frame as the student survey
data. As a result, the data extractors in
each school will access individual
school-level data for those students in
their school who consented and
participated in the baseline student
survey (3 * 4 * 30 * 95% = 342).
For the student focus groups, the
contractor will work with teachers and
principals to construct how students are
selected and grouped together, resulting
in groups of 10 students per group. Two
groups will be held per each of the 4
sites (10 × 2 × 4 = 80 total student
participants) moderated in a uniform
manner according to the student focus
group guide (Attachment ZZ).
Student implementer focus groups
will be organized by site (moderated
according to guidance in Attachments
AAA and BBB), with two annual focus
groups per site with 10 implementers in
each group (10 × 2 × 4 = 80 total student
program implementer participants).
Parent program implementer focus
groups will be organized by site
(moderated according to guidance in
Attachments AAA and BBB), with two
annual focus groups per site with 10
implementers in each group (10 × 2 × 4
= 80 total parent program implementer
participants).
School leadership: based on the
predicted number of one school
leadership (e.g., principal, vice
principal) per comprehensive school (22
schools), the number of respondents
will be 22.
Local Health Department
representative: based on the predicted
number of four communities/sites and
four local health department
representatives working on Dating
Matters per community, the number of
respondents will be 16.
Parent Program Manager: With a
maximum of one parent program
manager per community/site, the
number of program manager
respondents will be 4.
Community Representative: based on
the predicted number of 10 community
representatives per 4 communities/sites,
the number of respondents will be 40.
Parent Curricula Implementers: it is
expected that each school implementing
the comprehensive approach (n = 22)
will have one male and one female
parent implementing the parent
programs respondents will be (2 parents
× 22 schools) 44 implementers. Please

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

note that on the burden table the
number of respondents is multiplied by
the number of sessions in each parent
program.
For example, the 6th grade program
has 6 sessions and 264 (44 × 5) are
listed.
The 7th grade program has three
sessions and 132 (44 × 3) are listed.
The 8th grade parent curriculum is
mailed to parents and, as such, does not
involve implementers or session logs.
Student Curricula Implementers:
based on the predicted number of seven
student curricula implementers per
grade per school (n = 22) that will be
completing fidelity instruments, the
total number of respondents will be 154
per grade. Please note that on the
burden table, the number of respondents
is multiplied by the number of sessions
in each student curricula program.
For example, the 6th grade
curriculum has 6 sessions, so a total of
924 total respondents are listed (154 ×
6).
The 7th grade program has 7 sessions,
so a total of 1078 total respondents are
listed.
The 8th grade comprehensive
program has 10 sessions and 1540
respondents are listed.
The 8th grade standard program has
10 sessions and 1540 total respondents
are listed.
Brand Ambassadors: The Brand
Ambassador Implementation Survey
will be provided to each brand
ambassador in each community. With a
maximum of 20 brand ambassadors per
community, the feedback form will be
collected from a total of 80 brand
ambassadors.
Communications Implementers
(‘‘Brand Ambassador Coordinators’’):
The Communications Campaign
Tracking form will be provided to each
brand ambassador coordinator in each
community. With a maximum of one
brand ambassador coordinator per
community (n = 4), the feedback form
will be collected from a total of 4 brand
ambassador coordinators.
Student Program Master Trainer TA
Form: With a maximum of 3 master
trainers per community. There will be
12 master trainers. It is anticipated that
they will receive up to 50 TA requests
per year and complete the form 50
times.
There are no costs to the respondents
other than their time. The total
estimated annual burden hours are
44,978.

E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM

27FEN1

Save As...

11541

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Notices
ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS
Form name

Student Program Participant ................

Student Outcome Survey Baseline Attachment
D.
Student Outcome Survey Mid-Term Attachment
F.
Student Outcome Survey Follow-up Attachment
E.
School Indicators Attachment G: ........................
Parent Outcome Baseline Survey Attachment H
Parent Outcome Follow-up Survey Attachment
EEEE.
Educator Outcome Survey Attachment I ............
Brand Ambassador Implementation Survey Attachment J.
School Leadership Capacity and Readiness
Survey Attachment K.
Parent Program Fidelity 6th Grade Session 1–
Session 6 Attachment L–Q.
Parent Program Fidelity 7th Grade Session 1,
3, 5 Attachment R–T.
Student Program Fidelity 6th Grade Session 1–
Session 6 Attachment U–Z.
Student Program Fidelity 7th Grade Session 1–
Session 7 Attachment AA–GG.
Student Program Fidelity 8th Grade Session 1–
Session 10 (comprehensive) Attachment HH–
QQ.
Communications Campaign Tracking Attachment RR.
Local Health Department Capacity and Readiness Attachment SS.
Student participant focus group guide (time
spent in focus group) Attachment ZZ.
Student curricula implementer focus group
guide (time spent in focus group) Attachment
AAA.
Parent curricula implementer focus group guide
(time spent in focus group) Attachment BBB.
Safe Dates 8th Grade Session 1–Session 10
(standard) Attachment CCC–LLL.
Student program master trainer TA form Attachment DDDD.

Student Program Participant ................
Student Program Participant ................
School data extractor ...........................
Parent Program Participant ..................
Parent Program Participant ..................
Educator ...............................................
Student Brand ambassador ..................
School leadership .................................
Parent Curricula Implementer ..............
Parent Curricula Implementer ..............
Student Curricula Implementer .............
Student Curricula Implementer .............
Student Curricula Implementer .............
Communications Coordinator ...............
Local Health Department Representative.
Student Program Participant ................
Student Curricula Implementer .............
Parent Curricula Implementer ..............
Student Curricula Implementer .............
Student Master Trainer .........................

Dated: February 21, 2012.
Kimberly S. Lane,
Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2012–4561 Filed 2–24–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

[60Day-12–12EV]

Proposed Data Collections Submitted
for Public Comment and
Recommendations
In compliance with the requirement
of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for
opportunity for public comment on

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:10 Feb 24, 2012

Save As...

Jkt 226001

proposed data collection projects, the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic
summaries of proposed projects. To
request more information on the
proposed projects or to obtain a copy of
the data collection plans and
instruments, call 404–639–7570 and
send comments to Kimberly S. Lane,
CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600
Clifton Road MS–D74, Atlanta, GA
30333 or send an email to [email protected].
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed 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
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4703

Number of
responses per
respondent

Number of
respondents

Type of respondent

Sfmt 4703

Average
burden per
response
(hours)

15,048

1

45/60

14,652

1

45/60

14,256

1

45/60

44
2,424
2,181

342
1
1

15/60
1
1

1,584
80

2
2

30/60
20/60

22

1

1

264

3

15/60

132

3

15/60

924

1

15/60

1078

1

15/60

1540

1

15/60

4

4

20/60

16

1

2

80

1

1.5

80

1

1

80

1

1

1540

1

15/60

12

50

10/60

burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology. Written comments should
be received within 60 days of this
notice.
Proposed Project
Ensuring compliance with the OSHA
Bloodborne Pathogens Standard among
Non-Hospital Healthcare Facilities—
New—National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC).
Background and Brief Description
The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention estimate that healthcare
workers sustain nearly 600,000
percutaneous injuries annually
involving contaminated sharps. In

E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM

27FEN1