Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10217 

discussion groups of no more than ten 

individuals. Each facilitator will 

complete a brief facilitator information 

form designed to provide descriptive 

information about the group session. 

Each participant in the discussion 

groups will complete a pre and post 

program questionnaire. A total of 360 

participants 18 years or older, African 

American who either have diabetes or 

friends and/or family members of 

someone with diabetes will participate 

in the discussion groups; (2) These 360 

participants will also complete a onemonth follow up survey to assess 

whether or not desired behavior change 

occurred. The survey will be 

administered via mail, telephone and 

web and will take approximately 20–30 

minutes to complete; (3) A selected 

sample of participants with diabetes 

(n=18) will participate in 1-hour 

telephone interviews to discuss their 

experiences with the intervention, 

including any challenges they faced; (4) 

Twenty trained and lay facilitators will 

participate in 1-hour in-depth 

interviews to discuss the usefulness of 

the guide; (5) A feedback form for users 

of the New Beginnings discussion guide 

will be part of the future distribution of 

the guide. This form is designed to 

provide on-going input from new users 

of the guide. The only cost to 

respondents is their time to participate 

in the survey. 

Study Design 

The study will consist of the 

following three groups of facilitators 

and participants: 

Group 1: Twelve facilitators will 

convene groups of participants and 

complete the facilitator feedback forms. 

The same 120 participants will view the 

movie and complete the pre-, post-, and 

follow-up questionnaires. 

Group 2: Twelve facilitators will 

convene groups of participants and 

complete the facilitator feedback forms. 

The same 120 participants will view the 

movie, participate in one discussion 

session, and complete the pre-, post-, 

and follow-up questionnaires. 

Group 3: Twelve facilitators will 

convene groups of participants and 

complete the facilitator feedback forms 

for each discussion session convened. 

The same 120 participants will view the 

movie, participate in 2–4 discussion 

sessions, and complete the pre-, post-, 

and follow-up questionnaires. 

Additionally: 

18 participants (drawn from the total 

pool of 360) will participate in in-depth 

interviews. 

Twenty trained and lay facilitators 

will participate in in-depth interviews. 

50 facilitators will complete the 

feedback form that accompanies the 

discussion guide. 

Estimated Annualized Burden Hours 

Type of respondent Form name Number of respondents 

Number responses per 

respondent 

Average burden 

per response 

(in hours) 

Total burden 

(in hours) 

Group 1: Facilitator .......................... Facilitator Information Form ............ 12 1 5/60 1 

Group 1: Participant ......................... View the movie ................................ 120 1 30/60 60 

Group 1: Participant ......................... Pre-program questionnaire .............. 120 1 20/60 40 

Group 1: Participant ......................... Post-program questionnaire ............ 120 1 20/60 40 

Group 1: Participant ......................... Follow-up questionnaire .................. 120 1 20/60 40 

Group 2: Facilitator .......................... Facilitator Information Form ............ 12 1 10/60 2 

Group 2: Participant ......................... View the movie ................................ 120 1 30/60 60 

Group 2: Participant ......................... Pre-program questionnaire .............. 120 1 20/60 40 

Group 2: Participant ......................... Post-program questionnaire ............ 120 1 20/60 40 

Group 2: Participant ......................... Participate in one facilitated discussion.120 1 60/60 120 

Group 2: Participant ......................... Follow-up questionnaire .................. 120 1 20/60 40 

Group 3: Facilitator .......................... Facilitator Information Form ............ 12 4 10/60 8 

Group 3: Participant ......................... View the movie ................................ 120 1 30/60 60 

Group 3: Participant ......................... Pre-program questionnaire .............. 120 1 20/60 40 

Group 3: Participant ......................... Post-program questionnaire ............ 120 4 60/60 480 

Group 3: Participant ......................... Participate in four facilitated discussions.120 1 20/60 40 

Group 3: Participant ......................... Follow-up questionnaire .................. 120 1 20/60 40 

Facilitator .......................................... In-depth interview ............................ 20 1 60/60 20 

Participant ........................................ In-depth interview ............................ 18 1 60/60 18 

Facilitator .......................................... Feedback Forms ............................. 50 1 10/60 8.5 

Total .......................................... .......................................................... 396 ........................ .......................... 1197.5 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

Joan F. Karr, 

Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. E7–3984 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

[60-Day 07–0639] 

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 

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 404–639–5960 and 

send comments to Joan Karr, CDC 

Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 

Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 

30333 or send an e-mail to 

omb@cdc.gov. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10218 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

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 

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 

Special Exposure Cohort Petitions—

Extension—National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC). 

Background and Brief Description 

On October 30, 2000, the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000 

(EEOICPA), 42 U.S.C. 7384–7385 [1994, 

supp. 2001] was enacted. It established 

a compensation program to provide a 

lump sum payment of $150,000 and 

medical benefits as compensation to 

covered employees suffering from 

designated illnesses incurred as a result 

of their exposure to radiation, 

beryllium, or silica while in the 

performance of duty for the Department 

of Energy and certain of its vendors, 

contractors and subcontractors. This 

legislation also provided for payment of 

compensation for certain survivors of 

these covered employees. The only 

change to the collection is an increase 

in burden hours because more 

petitioners are requesting to have their 

work site named as a special exposure 

cohort. This program has been 

mandated to be in effect until Congress 

ends the funding. 

EEOICPA instructed the President to 

designate one or more Federal Agencies 

to carry out the compensation program. 

Accordingly, the President issued 

Executive Order 13179 (‘‘Providing 

Compensation to America’s Nuclear 

Weapons Workers’’) on December 7, 

2000 (65 FR 77487), assigning primary 

responsibility for administration of the 

compensation program to the 

Department of Labor (DOL). The 

executive order directed the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) to 

perform several technical and 

policymaking roles in support of the 

DOL program. 

Among other duties, the executive 

order directed HHS to establish and 

implement procedures for considering 

petitions by classes of nuclear weapons 

workers to be added to the ‘‘Special 

Exposure Cohort’’ (the ‘‘Cohort’’), 

various groups of workers whose claims 

for cancer under EEOICPA can be 

adjudicated without demonstrating that 

their cancer was ‘‘at least as likely as 

not’’ caused by radiation doses they 

incurred in the performance of duty. In 

brief, EEOICPA authorizes HHS to 

designate such classes of employees for 

addition to the Cohort when NIOSH 

lacks sufficient information to estimate 

with sufficient accuracy the radiation 

doses of the employees, if HHS also 

finds that the health of members of the 

class may have been endangered by the 

radiation dose the class potentially 

incurred. HHS must also obtain the 

advice of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (the 

‘‘Board’’) in establishing such findings. 

On March 7, 2003, HHS proposed 

procedures for adding such classes to 

the Cohort in a notice of proposed 

rulemaking at 42 CFR Part 83. 

The HHS procedures authorize a 

variety of individuals and entities to 

submit petitions, as specified under 

§ 83.7. Petitioners are required to 

provide the information specified in 

§ 83.9 to qualify their petitions for a 

complete evaluation by HHS and the 

Board. HHS has developed two petition 

forms to assist the petitioners in 

providing this required information 

efficiently and completely. Petition 

Form A is a one-page form to be used 

by EEOICPA claimants for whom 

NIOSH will have attempted to conduct 

dose reconstructions and will have 

determined that available information is 

not sufficient to complete the dose 

reconstruction. The form addresses the 

informational requirements specified 

under § 83.9(a) and (b). Petition Form B, 

accompanied by separate instructions, is 

intended for all other petitioners. The 

form addresses the informational 

requirements specified under § 83.9(a) 

and (c). Forms A and B can be 

submitted electronically as well as in 

hard copy. Petitioners should be aware 

that HHS is not requiring petitioners to 

use the forms. Petitioners can choose to 

submit petitions as letters or in other 

formats, but petitions must meet the 

informational requirements referenced 

above. NIOSH expects, however, that all 

petitioners for whom Form A would be 

appropriate will actually use the form, 

since NIOSH will provide it to them 

upon determining that their dose 

reconstruction cannot be completed and 

encourage them to submit the petition. 

NIOSH expects the large majority of 

petitioners for whom Form B would be 

appropriate will also use the form, since 

it provides a simple, organized format 

for addressing the informational 

requirements of a petition. 

NIOSH will use the information 

obtained through the petition for the 

following purposes: (a) Identify the 

petitioner(s), obtain their contact 

information, and establish that the 

petitioner(s) is qualified and intends to 

petition HHS; (b) establish an initial 

definition of the class of employees 

being proposed to be considered for 

addition to the Cohort; (c) determine 

whether there is justification to require 

HHS to evaluate whether or not to 

designate the proposed class as an 

addition to the Cohort (such an 

evaluation involves potentially 

extensive data collection, analysis, and 

related deliberations by NIOSH, the 

Board, and HHS); and, (d) target an 

evaluation by HHS to examine relevant 

potential limitations of radiation 

monitoring and/or dosimetry-relevant 

records and to examine the potential for 

related radiation exposures that might 

have endangered the health of members 

of the class. 

Finally, under § 83.18, petitioners 

may contest the proposed decision of 

the Secretary to add or deny adding 

classes of employees to the cohort by 

submitting evidence that the proposed 

decision relies on a record of either 

factual or procedural errors in the 

implementation of these procedures. 

NIOSH estimates that the time to 

prepare and submit such a challenge is 

45 minutes. Because of the uniqueness 

of this submission, NIOSH is not 

providing a form. The submission 

should be in a letter format. 

There are no costs to petitioners 

unless a petitioner chooses to purchase 

the services of a expert in dose 

reconstruction, an option provided for 

under 42 CFR 83.9(c)(2)(iii). The 

petitioner would assume the financial 

burden of purchasing such services at 

their option. In such cases, HHS 

estimates a report by such an expert 

may cost between $640 and $6,400, 

depending on the scope of the petition 

and access to relevant information. This 

is based on an estimate of costs of $80 

per hour for contractual services by a 

health physicist, who NIOSH estimates 

would be employed within a range of 

eight to eighty hours to conduct and 

prepare a report on the required 

assessment. 

Estimate of Annualized Burden Hours 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10219 

Form name & 

number (CFR 

reference) 

Respondents Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Average 

burden per respondent 

(in hours) 

Total burden 

(in hours) 

83.9 ................... Petitioners using Form A ................................................ 30 1 3/60 1 .5 

83.9 ................... Petitioners using Form B ................................................ 40 1 5 200 

83.9 ................... Petitioners not using Form B .......................................... 5 1 5.5 27 .5 

83.18 ................. Petitioners Appealing proposed decisions ..................... 5 1 45/60 3 .75 

Total .......... ......................................................................................... 80 ........................ ........................ 233 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

Joan F. Karr, 

Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. E7–3985 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

[60-Day 07–07AN] 

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 

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 404–639–5960 and 

send comments to Joan Karr, CDC 

Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 

Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 

30333 or send an e-mail to 

omb@cdc.gov. 

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 

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 

Program Effectiveness Evaluation of 

Workplace Intervention for Intimate 

Partner Violence (IPV)—New—National 

Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC). 

Background and Brief Description 

Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects 

a substantial number of Americans, and 

there has recently been increasing 

recognition of the impact it has on the 

workplace. In addition to direct impacts 

(batterers often stalk or even attack IPV 

victims at their place of work), IPV has 

indirect impacts on the workplace 

environment through lost productivity 

due to medical leave, absenteeism, and 

fear and distraction on the part of 

victims and coworkers. The Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

has employed contractor support to 

evaluate an ongoing workplace IPV 

prevention program being implemented 

at a national corporation. The purpose 

of the proposed evaluation is to 

document in detail the workplace IPV 

prevention activities delivered by the 

company, to determine the impact of 

these activities on short-term and longterm outcomes, and to determine the 

cost-effectiveness of the program. All 

managers at the corporation will be 

screened to assess training experiences. 

Then, more in-depth surveys will be 

done among managers who have not 

had the corporation’s IPV training. We 

will survey those 500 managers at 

baseline, and 6 and 12 months later. 

Manager surveys will focus on 

knowledge/awareness of IPV and 

company resources for IPV and number 

of referrals for IPV assistance. We will 

also survey employees of those 

managers using an anonymous webbased survey at baseline and 12 months 

later to assess their self-evaluated 

productivity, absenteeism, and 

perceptions of manager behavior. We 

will compare the responses of managers 

(and their employees) who received the 

IPV training in the study period (i.e., 

sometime between the baseline and 12 

month surveys) with untrained 

managers. The study will provide CDC 

and employers information about the 

potential effectiveness and costeffectiveness of workplace IPV 

intervention strategies. 

There are no costs to respondents 

except their time to participate in the 

interview. 

ESTIMATE OF ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Respondents Number of respondents 

Number of responses per 

respondent 

Average burden per response 

(in hours) 

Total burden 

(in hours) 

Employee ......................................................................................................... 1500 2 30/60 1500 

Manager ........................................................................................................... 500 3 30/60 75 

Total .......................................................................................................... 2000 ........................ ........................ 2250 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES