Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Notices 11539 

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 

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 omb@cdc.gov. 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 

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 


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 

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 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 2012 / Notices 11541 

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Type of respondent Form name Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Average 

burden per 

response 

(hours) 

Student Program Participant ................ Student Outcome Survey Baseline Attachment 

D.

15,048 1 45/60 

Student Program Participant ................ Student Outcome Survey Mid-Term Attachment 

F.

14,652 1 45/60 

Student Program Participant ................ Student Outcome Survey Follow-up Attachment 

E.

14,256 1 45/60 

School data extractor ........................... School Indicators Attachment G: ........................ 44 342 15/60 

Parent Program Participant .................. Parent Outcome Baseline Survey Attachment H 2,424 1 1 

Parent Program Participant .................. Parent Outcome Follow-up Survey Attachment 

EEEE.

2,181 1 1 

Educator ............................................... Educator Outcome Survey Attachment I ............ 1,584 2 30/60 

Student Brand ambassador .................. Brand Ambassador Implementation Survey Attachment J.80 2 20/60 

School leadership ................................. School Leadership Capacity and Readiness 

Survey Attachment K.

22 1 1 

Parent Curricula Implementer .............. Parent Program Fidelity 6th Grade Session 1– 

Session 6 Attachment L–Q.

264 3 15/60 

Parent Curricula Implementer .............. Parent Program Fidelity 7th Grade Session 1, 

3, 5 Attachment R–T.

132 3 15/60 

Student Curricula Implementer ............. Student Program Fidelity 6th Grade Session 1– 

Session 6 Attachment U–Z.

924 1 15/60 

Student Curricula Implementer ............. Student Program Fidelity 7th Grade Session 1– 

Session 7 Attachment AA–GG.

1078 1 15/60 

Student Curricula Implementer ............. Student Program Fidelity 8th Grade Session 1– 

Session 10 (comprehensive) Attachment HH– 

QQ.

1540 1 15/60 

Communications Coordinator ............... Communications Campaign Tracking Attachment RR.4 4 20/60 

Local Health Department Representative.Local Health Department Capacity and Readiness Attachment SS.16 1 2 

Student Program Participant ................ Student participant focus group guide (time 

spent in focus group) Attachment ZZ.

80 1 1.5 

Student Curricula Implementer ............. Student curricula implementer focus group 

guide (time spent in focus group) Attachment 

AAA.

80 1 1 

Parent Curricula Implementer .............. Parent curricula implementer focus group guide 

(time spent in focus group) Attachment BBB.

80 1 1 

Student Curricula Implementer ............. Safe Dates 8th Grade Session 1–Session 10 

(standard) Attachment CCC–LLL.

1540 1 15/60 

Student Master Trainer ......................... Student program master trainer TA form Attachment DDDD.12 50 10/60 

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 

[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 

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 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 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES