Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices 28493 

hours of clerical labor at $14.44 per hour—a 

combined $371.27—multiplied by 1.06426 (a 

combined $395.13)—for the estimated 233,400+ 

non-GLBA business families subject to the proposed 

Rule. 

7 3,268,000 hours ÷ 3 = 1,089,000; $92,247,000 ÷ 

3 = $30,749,000. 

8Financial institutions must provide a privacy 

notice at the time the customer relationship is 

established and then annually so long as the 

relationship continues. Staff’s estimates assume that 

the affiliate marketing opt-out will be incorporated 

in the institution’s initial and annual notices. 

9As stated above, no clerical time is included in 

the estimate because the notice likely would be 

combined with existing GLBA notices. 

10 3,350 GLBA entities × [($34.20 × 5 hours) + 

($29.80 × 1 hour)] × 1.06426 wage multiplier (see 

note 6). 

These estimates include the start-up 

burden and attendant costs, such as 

determining compliance obligations. 

However, non-GLBA entities will give 

notice only once during the clearance 

period ahead. Thus, averaged over that 

three-year period, the estimated annual 

burden for non-GLBA entities is 

1,089,000 hours and $30,749,000 in 

labor costs, rounded.7

Entities that are subject to the 

Commission’s GLBA privacy notice 

regulation already provide privacy 

notices to their customers.8 Because the 

FACT Act and the proposed Rule 

contemplate that the new affiliate 

marketing notice can be included in the 

GLBA notices, the burden on GLBA 

regulated entities would be greatly 

reduced. Accordingly, the GLBA entities 

would incur 6 hours of burden during 

the first year of the clearance period, 

comprised of a projected 5 hours of 

managerial time and 1 hour of technical 

time to execute the notice, given that the 

proposed Rule provides a model.9 Staff 

also estimates that 3,350 GLBA entities 

under the FTC’s jurisdiction would be 

affected, so that the total burden for 

GLBA entities during the first year of 

the clearance period would approximate 

20,000 hours and $716,000 in associated 

labor costs.10 Allowing for increased 

familiarity with procedure, the 

paperwork burden in ensuing years 

would decline, with GLBA entities each 

incurring an estimated 4 hours of 

annual burden (3 hours of managerial 

time and 1 hour of technical time) 

during the remaining two years of the 

clearance, amounting to 13,400 hours 

and $472,000 in labor costs in each of 

the ensuing two years. Thus, averaged 

over the three-year clearance period, the 

estimated annual burden for GLBA 

entities is 15,600 hours and $553,000 in 

labor costs. 

Cumulatively for both GLBA and nonGLBA entities, the average annual 

burden over the prospective three-year 

clearance period, rounded, is 

approximately 1,105,000 burden hours 

and $31,302,000 in labor costs, rounded. 

GLBA entities are already providing 

notices to their customers so there are 

no new capital or non-labor costs, as 

this notice may be consolidated into 

their current notices. For non-GLBA 

entities, the rule provides for simple 

and concise model forms that 

institutions may use to comply. Thus, 

any capital or non-labor costs associated 

with compliance for these entities are 

negligible. 

William Blumenthal, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E7–9711 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

Findings of Research Misconduct 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) 

and the Assistant Secretary for Health 

have taken final action in the following 

case: 

Kartik Prabhakaran, University of 

Pittsburgh: Based on the report of an 

inquiry conducted by the University of 

Pittsburgh (UP), extensive oral and 

written admissions by the Respondent, 

and additional analysis conducted by 

the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) 

during its oversight review, the U.S. 

Public Health Service (PHS) found that 

Mr. Kartik Prabhakaran, former graduate 

student in the joint M.D./Ph.D. program 

at UP, engaged in research misconduct 

while supported by National Institutes 

of Neurological Disorders and Stroke 

(NINDS), National Institutes of Health 

(NIH), grant F30 NS50905–01 and 

National Eye Institute (NEI), NIH, grants 

5 R01 EY005945, 5 P30 EY008098, and 

5 R01 EY015291. 

Specifically, Mr. Prabhakaran falsified 

and fabricated data that was included in 

a PowerPoint presentation and in a 

paper published in Immunity 

(Immunity 23:515–525, November 

2005). Mr. Prabhakaran’s research 

misconduct occurred while he was a 

student in the M.D./Ph.D. program for 

UP’s School of Medicine. He is no 

longer in UP’s Ph.D. program but is still 

enrolled in its M.D. program in the 

School of Medicine. The Immunity 

publication has been retracted 

(Immunity 24:657, May 2006). 

Mr. Prabhakaran has entered into a 

Voluntary Exclusion Agreement in 

which he has voluntarily agreed, for a 

period of four (4) years, beginning on 

March 15, 2007: 

(1) 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; 

and 

(2) That any institution that submits 

an application for PHS support for a 

research project on which Mr. 

Prabhakaran’s participation is proposed, 

that uses him in any capacity on PHS 

supported research, or that submits a 

report of PHS-funded research in which 

he is involved must concurrently submit 

a plan for supervision of his duties to 

the funding agency for approval. The 

supervisory plan must be designed to 

ensure the scientific integrity of his 

research contribution. Mr. Prabhakaran 

agreed to ensure that a copy of the 

supervisory plan also is submitted to 

ORI by the institution. Mr. Prabhakaran 

agreed that he will not participate in 

any PHS-supported research until such 

a supervision plan is submitted to ORI. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Director, Division of Investigative 

Oversight, Office of Research Integrity, 

1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, 

Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453–8800. 

Chris B. Pascal, 

Director, Office of Research Integrity. 

[FR Doc. E7–9735 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

Proposed Information Collection 

Activity; Comment Request Proposed 

Projects 

Title: Case Plan Requirement, Section 

442, 471(a)(16), 475(1) and 475(5)(A) of 

the Social Security Act. 

OMB No.: 0980–0140. 

Description: The Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF) is 

requesting authority to renew an 

existing information collection that is 

expiring October 31, 2007. The 

collection of information for the case 

plan requirement is authorized by titles 

IV–B, Section 422 (42 U.S.C. 422), and 

IV–E, Sections 471 and 475 (42 U.S.C. 

471 and 475) of the Social Security Act 

(the Act). States must develop State 

plans for both Titles IV–B and IV–E that 

are approved by the Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. Both plans require that States 

maintain a case review system that 

periodically reviews case plans 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
28494 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices 

developed for each child receiving 

services under the Act. 

Title IV–B provides for child welfare 

services funding and title IV–E provides 

for foster care maintenance payments 

for eligible children. Sections 442(b)(2) 

and (8)(A)(ii) of the Act require States to 

coordinate services and assistance 

under Federal programs, including titles 

IV–B and IV–E, and to ensure that States 

are operating a case review system that 

meets the review system that meets the 

requirements of section 475(5) of the 

Act. 

Title IV–E funding, Section 471(a) of 

the Act, requires that State plans 

provide for the development of a case 

plan for each child receiving foster care 

maintenance payments and provide for 

a case review system that meets the 

requirements described in section 

475(5)(B) of the Act with respect to each 

child. 

The case plan is a written document 

that provides a narrative description of 

the child-specific program of care that 

addresses the needs of each child 

regarding safety, permanency and wellbeing. Federal regulations at 45 CFR 

1356.21(g) and section 475(1) of the Act 

delineate the specific information that 

should be addressed in the case plan. 

ACF neither specifies a recordkeeping 

format for the case plan nor requires 

submission of the case plan to the 

Federal Government. Case plan 

information is recorded in a format 

developed and maintained by State 

child welfare agencies. Case plans are 

periodically reviewed under the 

purview of State case review systems. 

In computing the number of burden 

hours for this information collection, 

ACF based the annual burden estimates 

on States’ experiences in developing 

case plans. 

Respondents: State title IV–B and title 

IV–E Agencies. 

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Instrument Number of 

respondents 

Number for 

responses per 

respondent 

Average 

burden hours 

per response 

Total burden 

hours 

Case Plan ........................................................................................................ 701,461 1 2.60 1,823,799 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 1,823,799. 

In compliance with the requirements 

of Section 3506(c)(2)(a) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Administration for Children and 

Families is soliciting public comment 

on the specific aspects of the 

information collection described above. 

Copies of the proposed collection of 

information can be obtained and 

comments may be forwarded by writing 

to the Administration for Children and 

Families, Office of Administration, 

Office of Information Services, 370 

L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, 

DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance 

Officer. E-mail address: 

infocollection@acf.hhs.gov. All requests 

should be identified by the title of the 

information collection. 

The Department specifically requests 

comments on: (a) Whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

fro 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) 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (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. 

Consideration will be given to 

comments and suggestions submitted 

within 60 days of this publication. 

Dated: May 15, 2007. 

Robert Sargis, 

Reports Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 07–2501 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

Statement of Organization, Functions 

and Delegation of Authority 

Notice is hereby given that I have 

redelegated to the Regional Program 

Managers, Office of Child Support 

Enforcement, the following authorities 

vested in me by the Assistant Secretary 

of Administration for Children and 

Families in the memoranda dated 

February 16, 2007. 

(a) Authorities Delegated. 

1. The authority to approve Title IVD State plans and amendments. 

2. Authority to certify and transmit 

State requests for full collection services 

by the Secretary of Treasury and State 

applications to use courts of the United 

States to enforce court orders. 

(b) Limitations. 

1. These redelegations shall be 

exercised under financial and 

administrative requirements applicable 

to all Administration for Children and 

Families authorities. 

2. The authority to approve Title IVD State plans and amendments requires 

review and clearance by legal counsel 

and consultation with Central Office, 

Office of Child Support Enforcement, 

except as provided in written guidelines 

issued by the Commissioner. 

3. These authorities may not be 

redelegated. 

(c) Effective Date. 

This redelegation is effective on the 

date of signature. 

(d) Effect on Existing Delegations. 

This redelegation of authority 

supersedes all previous delegations 

from the Deputy Director/ 

Commissioner, Office of Child Support 

Enforcement, on these subjects. 

I hereby affirm and ratify any actions 

taken by any Regional Program Manager 

which, in effect, involved the exercise of 

these authorities prior to the effective 

date of this redelegation. 

Dated: May 10, 2007. 

Margot Bean, 

Deputy Director/Commissioner, Office of 

Child Support Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E7–9671 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES