Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2013 / Notices 54473 

control-patients, we estimate that 78 in 

each group will agree and be eligible to 

participate in the study and will 

proceed to the full interview. We 

anticipate the screening questions to 

take about 5 minutes and the telephone 

interview 30 minutes per respondent in 

both the adult and pediatric groups. 

There are no costs to respondents. 

The total response burden for the study 

is estimated as follows: 

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Type of respondents 

(adult and pediatric) Form name Number of respondents 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Average 

burden per 

response 

(in hours) 

Total burden 

(in hours) 

Case subjects >17 years of age ....... Screening Process ........................... 129 1 5/60 11 

Telephone interview ......................... 71 1 30/60 36 

Control Subjects >17 years of age ... Screening Process ........................... 142 1 5/60 12 

Telephone interview ......................... 71 1 30/60 36 

Case Subject ≤1–5 years of age ...... Screening Process ........................... 141 1 5/60 12 

Telephone interview ......................... 78 1 30/60 39 

Control Subjects ≤1–5 years of age Screening Process ........................... 194 1 5/60 16 

Telephone interview ......................... 78 1 30/60 39 

Total ........................................... ........................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 201 

Leroy Richardson, 

Chief, Information Collection Review Office, 

Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the 

Associate Director for Science, Office of the 

Director, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21468 Filed 9–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

[CDC–2013–0020; NIOSH–269] 

Request for Information: Collection 

and Use of Nonfatal Workplace 

Violence Information from the National 

Crime Victimization Survey 

AGENCY: The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) and the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Request for public comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) and the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (BJS) of the Office of 

Justice Programs, Department of Justice 

(DOJ), are collaborating to request 

public comments to inform BJS’s 

approach in collecting and reporting 

data related to nonfatal workplace 

violence in the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS). NIOSH 

and BJS request input on these issues. 

The instructions for submitting 

comments can be found at 

www.regulations.gov. Written 

comments submitted to the Docket will 

be used to inform BJS with the planning 

and collection of workplace violence 

data in the NCVS. Dates: Public 

Comment Period: Comments must be 

received by November 27, 2013 to be 

considered by BJS and NIOSH. 

Addresses: Written comments: You may 

submit comments by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert 

A. Taft Laboratories, MS–C34, 4676 

Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 

45226. 

• Instructions: All submissions 

received must include the agency name 

and docket number [CDC–2013–0020; 

NIOSH–269]. All relevant comments, 

including any personal information 

provided, will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov. 

All information received in response 

to this notice will be available for public 

examination and copying at the NIOSH 

Docket Office, 4676 Columbia Parkway, 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. 

I. Background 

The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) is the federal agency 

responsible for conducting research to 

prevent workplace injuries and 

illnesses. Workplace violence is a 

common threat to worker safety and 

health, and NIOSH has a long history of 

conducting research on the prevalence, 

risk factors for, and prevention of workrelated violence. 

The U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics collects data on rape, sexual 

assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and 

simple assault against persons age 12 or 

older through the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS). The 

NCVS gathers data from a continuous, 

nationally representative sample of 

approximately 86,000 households 

comprising nearly 156,000 persons age 

12 or older in the United States, 

reported and not reported to the police. 

The NCVS provides information about 

victims (e.g. age, gender, race, Hispanic 

origin, marital status, income, and 

educational level), offenders (e.g. 

gender, race, approximate age, and 

victim/offender relationship), and the 

nature of the crime (time and place of 

occurrence, use of weapons, nature of 

injury, and economic consequences). 

NCVS respondents who report that 

they were a victim of a violent crime 

(rape, sexual assault, robbery, 

aggravated assault, or simple assault) 

while working or on duty are included 

in NCVS special reports on workplace 

violence. BJS published special reports 

on workplace violence in 1994, 1998 

(covering 1992–96), 2001 (covering 

1993–99), 2011 (covering 1993–2009) 

and 2013 (focused on government 

workers, 1994–2011). These reports are 

available on the BJS Web site as part of 

their violence in the workplace series at 

http://www.bjs.gov/ 

index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=56 

All of the workplace violence special 

reports used the same classification 

system to determine work-relatedness of 

the incidents. To qualify as workplace 

violence the incident must have: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
54474 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2013 / Notices 

• Involved someone 16 years of age or 

older, 

• Had the activity variable coded as 

‘‘working’’, 

• Involved a violent crime, 

• Involved a person who had a job or 

worked at a business the week 

preceding the survey or during the 6 

months preceding the survey, and 

• The event must have occurred 

within the United States. 

Additionally, workplace violence to 

teachers commuting to and from work 

were included to make the data 

comparable to estimates presented in 

the Department of Education/BJS report, 

‘‘Indicators of School Crime and 

Safety.’’ The NCVS is a nationally 

representative household survey so it 

excludes persons who are homeless, 

persons living in military barracks or 

stationed outside of the U.S., and those 

persons living in institutionalized group 

quarters, such as prisons, mental health 

facilities, and certain hospitals and 

assisted-living facilities. In 2002, NIOSH 

and BJS conducted The Workplace Risk 

Supplement to the NCVS, which was 

administered to employed respondents 

who were 16 years or older in all 

households selected for the NCVS 

during the 6-month reference period 

from January through June 2002. This 

supplement used the same classification 

system described for the special reports. 

II. Purpose of Request for Comments 

NIOSH and BJS are collaborating to 

improve and enhance the collection of 

nonfatal workplace violence data 

through the NCVS. This is part of a 

larger BJS effort to re-design and 

increase the utility of nonfatal violence 

data collected through the NCVS. 

NIOSH and BJS are seeking input on: 

(1) Methods to identify work-related 

violence using the existing variable 

structure within the NCVS, and (2) other 

suggested enhancements to improve the 

ability of the NCVS to describe the 

prevalence, patterns, and trends in 

workplace violence. Responses to this 

request for information will be 

considered by BJS in: (1) The re-design 

of the NCVS, (2) an on-line NVCS 

reporting tool, and (3) future BJS 

workplace violence reports. NIOSH and 

BJS also anticipate utilizing this 

information in a jointly issued technical 

report on methodological issues with 

identifying and reporting on nonfatal 

workplace violence through the NCVS. 

III. Identifying Workplace Violence in 

the NCVS 

NIOSH defines workplace violence as 

‘‘violent acts, including physical 

assaults and threats of assault, directed 

toward persons at work or on duty.’’ 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) defines 

workplace violence as any act or threat 

of physical violence, harassment, 

intimidation, or other threatening 

disruptive behavior that occurs at the 

work site. These are broad definitions 

and most data collection systems will 

not capture all incidents of workplace 

violence. For example, data on 

workplace violence collected through 

the NIOSH/Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, National Electronic Injury 

Surveillance System- Work Supplement 

(NEISS-Work), which is collected from 

a nationally representative sample of 

hospital emergency departments, is 

more likely to capture workplace 

violence that results in physical injuries 

than other forms that do not result in 

injury such as threats, harassment and 

intimidation, http://www2a.cdc.gov/

risqs/wrtechinfo.htm. 

Additionally, the NIOSH and OSHA 

definitions are restricted to incidents 

that occur at work and do not 

encompass violence that may have a 

work-association but not have occurred 

at work, such as violence associated 

with commuting to and from a 

workplace. BJS and NIOSH plan to 

address these issues and the 

implications for assessing trends in 

workplace violence using the NCVS and 

other data sources in the anticipated 

jointly-issued technical report on 

workplace violence methodological 

issues in the NCVS. 

Determining work-relatedness of the 

violent incidents recorded by the NCVS 

is not straightforward. Many factors 

influence the decision to include the 

case as a workplace violence incident. 

The work-related variables that are 

currently collected in the NCVS appear 

below. Any combination of these 

variables is possible. Immediately below 

the variable list are alternatives for 

variable combinations that are currently 

being used or considered in determining 

work-relatedness in the NCVS. There 

are advantages and disadvantages to 

different methods, including the ability 

to assess trends using historical data 

and being more inclusive or exclusive in 

identifying work associations. 

Input is requested regarding the best 

combination of variables to determine 

work-relatedness of the violent incident. 

In particular, what would be your first 

and second choices for a combination of 

variables to identify work-related 

violence and why? 

NCVS crime incident report 

instrument: http://www.bjs.gov/index.

cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#

Questionnaires 

IV. Currently Collected Variables in the 

NCVS That May Be Considered to 

Establish Work-relatedness 

Household-level Variables 

1. Does anyone in this household 

operate a business from this address? 

2. Is there a sign on the premises or 

some other indication to the general 

public that a business is operated from 

this address? 

Person-level Variables 

3. Did you have a job or work at a 

business last week? 

4. Did you have a job or work at a 

business during the last 6 months? 

5. Did that (job/work) last 2 

consecutive weeks or more? 

6. Which of the following best 

describes your job? 

Medical Profession 

• Physician 

• Nurse 

• Technician 

• Other 

Mental Health Services Field 

• Professional (Social worker/ 

Psychiatrist) 

• Custodial care 

• Other 

Teaching Profession 

• Preschool 

• Elementary 

• Junior high or middle school 

• High school 

• College or university 

Technical or Industrial School 

• Special education facility 

• Other 

Law Enforcement Security Field 

• Law enforcement officer 

• Correctional officer 

• Security guard 

• Other 

Retail Sales 

• Convenience or liquor store clerk 

• Gas station attendant 

• Bartender 

• Other 

Transportation Field 

• Bus driver 

• Taxi cab driver 

• Other 

Something Else 

7. Is your job with a private company, 

federal government, state, county, or 

local government, or yourself? 

8. While working at your job, do you 

work mostly in city, suburb, or rural 

area or combination of these? 

9. Are you employed by a college or 

university? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2013 / Notices 54475 

Incident-Level Variables 

10. Was the victim injured? How 

(Type of injury)? 

11. What were you doing when this 

incident (happened/started)? 

• Working or on duty 

• On the way to or from work 

• On the way to or from school 

• On the way to or from other place 

• Shopping, errands 

• Attending school 

• Leisure activity away from home 

• Sleeping 

• Other activities at home 

• Other 

12. Were you employed at the time of 

the incident? 

13. What was the type of work 

performed at the time of the incident? 

14. Is this business incorporated? 

15. What was the business type? 

16. What was the type of industry at 

the time of the incident? 

17. Collapsed industry code. 

18. Collapsed occupation code. 

19. While working at this job, did you 

work mostly in a city, suburb, rural area, 

or combination of any of these? 

20. Did this incident happen at your 

work site? 

21. Did you usually work days or 

nights? 

22. Is this your current job? 

23. Did you lose time from work 

because of the injuries you suffered in 

this incident? 

24. How many days did you lose 

because of injuries? 

25. Did you lose any pay that was not 

covered by unemployment insurance, 

sick leave or some other source? 

26. About how much pay did you 

lose? 

27. Did you lose any (other) time from 

work because of this incident for such 

things as cooperating with a police 

investigation, testifying in court, or 

repairing or replacing damaged or stolen 

property? 

28. How much time did you lose 

altogether because of cooperating with a 

police investigation, testifying in court, 

or repairing or replacing damaged or 

stolen property? 

29. During these days, did you lose 

any pay that was not covered by 

unemployment insurance, paid leave, or 

some other source? 

30. About how much pay did you 

lose? 

31. Were there any (other) household 

members 16 years or older who lost time 

from work because of this incident? 

32. How much time did they lose 

altogether? 

Alternatives for determining workrelatedness 

Variable alternatives currently used or 

under consideration and some 

advantages and disadvantages are: 

Alternative I: Current Coding Scheme 

Used by the BJS: 

• Age 16 (victims age 16 or older), 

• Had a job or worked at a business 

last week or during the last 6 months, 

• Excludes outside of U.S. 

• Activity at time of incident— 

working, 

• Violent crime 

Advantages—can be used to generate 

rates of workplace violence by 

occupation and other aspects, facilitates 

trend analyses with earlier data, 

relatively consistent with NIOSH and 

OSHA definitions of workplace violence 

(with exception of non-robbery threats 

of violence, harassment and 

intimidation which are not included in 

the NCVS definition of a violent crime 

and the inclusion of commuting injuries 

for teachers) 

Disadvantages—calculations of rates 

of workplace violence by occupation 

may not be as accurate because job at 

the time of incident may be different 

from current job. The percentage of 

workplace violence that occurred in 

which the job at the time of the incident 

was different from the job at the time of 

the NCVS interview increased from 44% 

in 2007 to about 56% in 2011. 

Alternative II 

• Age 16 or older, 

• Had a job or worked at a business 

last week or during the last 6 months, 

• Job at time of incident was the same 

as job mentioned at beginning of NCVS 

interview, 

• Excludes outside of U.S., 

• Activity at time of incidentworking, 

• Violent crime. 

Advantages—relatively consistent 

with NIOSH and OSHA definitions of 

workplace violence, allows for a more 

accurate calculation of rates of 

workplace violence by occupation than 

what is done currently (everyone has 

the same job for the numerator and 

denominator). 

Disadvantages—persons that 

experienced workplace violence at a 

time where their job does not match 

their job at the NCVS interview are 

excluded. As mentioned above, the 

percentage of workplace violence in 

which the job at the time of the incident 

was different from the job at the time of 

the NCVS interview has increased in 

recent years from 44% in 2007 to about 

56% in 2011. These cases would be 

excluded from estimates of workplace 

violence by using Alternative II. 

Alternative III 

• Age 16 or older, 

• Excludes outside of U.S., 

• Activity at time of incidentworking, 

• Violent crime 

Advantages—relatively consistent 

with NIOSH and OSHA definitions. 

Disadvantages—calculations of rates 

of workplace violence by occupation 

may not be as accurate because job at 

the time of incident may be different 

from current job. 

Alternative IV 

• Age 16 or older, 

• Had a job or worked at a business 

last week or during the last 6 months, 

• Excludes outside of U.S., 

• Activity at time of incident-working 

or on the way to/from work, 

• Violent crime 

Advantages—includes violence 

committed on the way to and from work 

as well as while working. 

Disadvantages—calculations of rates 

of workplace violence by occupation 

may not be as accurate because job at 

the time of incident may be different 

from current job. Inconsistent with 

NIOSH and OSHA definitions of 

workplace violence which exclude 

violence during the commute to or from 

work. 

Alternative V 

• Age 16 or older, 

• Excludes outside of U.S., 

• Activity at time of incidentworking, 

• Employed at the time of the 

incident, 

• Violent crime. 

Advantages—know for certain the 

victim was employed at the time of the 

incident, relatively consistent with 

NIOSH and OSHA definitions. 

Disadvantages—calculations of rates 

of workplace violence by occupation 

may not be as accurate because job at 

the time of incident may be different 

from current job. 

Alternative VI 

• Age 16 or older, 

• Excludes outside of U.S., 

• incident happened at your worksite, 

• violent crime. 

Advantages—know for certain where 

the crime took place. 

Disadvantages—excludes workplace 

violence that occurs while a person is 

on duty away from the worksite and 

thus inconsistent with NIOSH and 

OSHA definitions of workplace 

violence. 

V. The second item for which we are 

requesting input is any other suggested 

enhancements to improve the ability of 

the NCVS to report on workplace 

violence. Two enhancements that are 

currently being explored by BJS and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
54476 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2013 / Notices 

NIOSH are: (1) The ability to report 

NCVS data by a workplace violence 

typology used by NIOSH and public 

health researchers (Type I—Criminal 

Intent, Type II—Customer/client, Type 

III—Worker-on-Worker, and Type IV 

Intimate Partner Violence [detail 

available at http://www.publichealth.uiowa.edu/iprc/resources/

workplace-violence-report.pdf]), and (2) 

revisions to the categories of 

occupations that are used in reports. 

One of the factors that will need to be 

considered with respect to occupation 

categories is the NCVS sample size and 

the ability to reliably report on specific 

occupations. 

In a recent review of the NCVS data 

collection instrument, there were a 

number of potential limitations that 

were identified. These include, but are 

not limited to: 

1. The victim-offender relationship 

variable is first conditioned on whether 

the victim knows the perpetrator or not. 

This complicates the use of such 

relationships as ‘‘customer/client or 

patient.’’ A worker who was assaulted 

by a customer who was also a stranger 

would be skipped out of the victimoffender relationship variable. Only 

customers that were considered casual 

acquaintances or well known to the 

victim would be filtered into the 

specific relationship coding. So it is 

possible that many offenders who were 

customers or clients end up in the 

stranger coding. 

2. Currently, NCVS collects limited 

occupation types (see section IV, #6). 

These categories are primarily 

considered high-risk occupations for 

certain victimization types. The 

categories do not reflect changes in the 

workforce since 1990. Input is requested 

regarding potential enhancements to the 

collection and reporting of nonfatal 

workplace violence in the NCVS. In 

particular, do you think it would be 

useful for BJS to include the public 

health typology of workplace violence 

in future workplace violence reports 

and in the on-line NCVS reporting tool? 

Do you have suggestions for reporting 

on specific occupation or occupation 

groups and/or methods to address 

limitations regarding the NCVS sample 

size? Do you have suggestions for 

addressing the potential limitations 

identified in the survey, such as issues 

with the relationship variable? 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Daniel Hartley, 1095 Willowdale Road, 

Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, 

telephone (304) 285–5812. Email: 

DHartley@cdc.gov. 

Dated: August 20, 2013. 

John Howard, 

Director, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention. 

Dated: August 26, 2013. 

William Sabol, 

Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21441 Filed 9–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–19–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Availability of Draft National 

Toxicology Program Technical 

Reports; Request for Comments; 

Notice of Meeting 

SUMMARY: The National Toxicology 

Program (NTP) announces the 

availability of four draft NTP Technical 

Reports (TRs) scheduled for peer 

review: vinylidene chloride, cobalt 

metal dust, tetrabromobisphenol A 

(TBBPA), and glycidamide. The draft 

TRs should be available by September 

20, 2013, at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/ 

36051. The peer-review meeting is open 

to the public and preregistration is 

requested for both public attendance 

and comment. Information about the 

meeting and registration are available at 

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/36051. 

DATES:

Meeting: October 29, 2013, 8:30 a.m. 

to approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

Daylight Time (EDT). 

Document Availability: Draft TRs 

should be available by September 20, 

2013, at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/

36051. 

Public Comments Submissions: 

Deadline is October 15, 2013. 

Pre-Registration for Meeting and/or 

Oral Comments: Deadline is October 25, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: 

Meeting Location: Rodbell 

Auditorium, Rall Building, NIEHS, 111 

T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709. 

Meeting Web page: The draft TRs, 

preliminary agenda, registration, and 

other meeting materials are at http://

ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/36051. 

Webcast: The meeting will be 

available via webcast at http://

www.niehs.nih.gov/news/video/

index.cfm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Lori White, NTP Designated Federal 

Official, Office of Liaison, Policy and 

Review, DNTP, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, 

MD K2–03, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709. Phone: (919) 541–9834, Fax: 

(301) 480–3272, Email: whiteld@

niehs.nih.gov. Hand Delivery/Courier: 

530 Davis Drive, Room 2136, 

Morrisville, NC 27560. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Meeting and Registration: The 

meeting is open to the public with time 

set aside for oral public comment; 

attendance at the NIEHS is limited only 

by the space available. Pre-registration 

to attend the meeting and/or provide 

oral comments is by October 25, 2013, 

at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/36051. 

Visitor and security information for 

those attending in person is available at 

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/

visiting/index.cfm. Individuals with 

disabilities who need accommodation to 

participate in this event should contact 

Dr. Yun Xie at phone: (919) 541–3436 or 

email: yun.xie@nih.gov. TTY users 

should contact the Federal TTY Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. Requests 

should be made at least five business 

days in advance of the event. 

The preliminary agenda and draft TRs 

should be posted on the NTP Web site 

(http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/36051) by 

September 20, 2013. Additional 

information will be posted when 

available or may be requested in 

hardcopy, see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. Following the meeting, a 

report of the peer review will be 

prepared and made available on the 

NTP Web site. Registered attendees are 

encouraged to access the meeting Web 

page to stay abreast of the most current 

information regarding the meeting. 

Request for Comments: The NTP 

invites written and oral public 

comments on the draft TRs. The 

deadline for submission of written 

comments is October 15, 2013, to enable 

review by the peer-review panel and 

NTP staff prior to the meeting. Preregistration to provide oral comments is 

by October 25, 2013, at http://

ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/36051. Public 

comments and any other 

correspondence on the draft TRs should 

be sent to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. Persons submitting written 

comments should include their name, 

affiliation, mailing address, phone, 

email, and sponsoring organization (if 

any) with the document. Written 

comments received in response to this 

notice will be posted on the NTP Web 

site, and the submitter will be identified 

by name, affiliation, and/or sponsoring 

organization. 

Public comment at this meeting is 

welcome, with time set aside for the 

presentation of oral comments on the 

draft TRs. In addition to in-person oral 

comments at the meeting at the NIEHS, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES