Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 77153 

at the Bridge of the Americas Land Port 

of Entry. 

GSA conducted internal and external 

scoping meetings to seek input on 

alternatives and issues associated with 

implementation of the proposed action 

through various alternatives. The GSA 

has narrowed the alternatives that best 

fulfill the purpose and need to the 

following two with the addition of the 

No Action Alternative: 

Multi-Level Modernization with High/ 

Low Booths Primarily within Existing 

Port Boundaries with Minor Land 

Acquisition. (Viable Action Alternative 

#A1) 

Multi-Level Modernization within 

Existing Port Boundaries with Minor 

Land Acquisition Immediately Adjacent 

to the Port and Elimination of 

Commercial Cargo Operations. (Viable 

Action Alternative #4) 

The Draft EIS states the purpose and 

need for the Proposed Action, analyzes 

the alternatives considered, including 

the option of No Action and assesses 

environmental impacts of each 

alternative, including avoidance, 

minimization, and potential mitigation 

measures. 

GSA, in cooperation with CBP has 

selected Viable Action Alternative #4 

Multi-Level Modernization within 

Existing Port Boundaries with Minor 

Land Acquisition Immediately Adjacent 

to the Port and Elimination of 

Commercial Cargo Operations as its 

Preferred Alternative. 

GSA believes this alternative would 

best fulfill its statutory mission and 

responsibilities, giving consideration to 

economic, environmental, technical and 

other factors and is seeking public and 

stakeholder comments on this 

alternative before a final decision is 

made. 

Michael Clardy, 

Director, Facilities Management Division 

(7PM), General Services Administration— 

Public Building Service, Greater Southwest 

Region. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21068 Filed 9–19–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–AY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality, HHS. 

ACTION: Information collection notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice announces the intention of the 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality (AHRQ) to request that the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) approve the reinstatement 

without change of the information 

collection project Evaluating the 

Implementation of PCOR to Increase 

Referral, Enrollment, and Retention 

through Automatic Referral to Cardiac 

Rehabilitation (CR) with Care 

Coordinator OMB No. 0935–0252 for 

which approval has expired. The 

reinstatement of this previously 

approved PRA collection for which 

approval has expired is required in 

order to discontinue this collection. 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by November 19, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, 

Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by 

email at 

REPORTSCLEARANCEOFFICER@

ahrq.hhs.gov. 

Copies of the proposed collection 

plans, data collection instruments, and 

specific details on the estimated burden 

can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports 

Clearance Officer. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports 

Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by 

email at 

REPORTSCLEARANCEOFFICER@

ahrq.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Information Collection: 

Evaluating the Implementation of PCOR 

to Increase Referral, Enrollment, and 

Retention through Automatic Referral to 

Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) with Care 

Coordinator. 

OMB No.: 0935–0252. 

Type of Request: Reinstatement 

without change to discontinue the 

collection. 

The aim of this project, known as 

TAKEheart, was to (a) raise awareness 

about the benefits of cardiac 

rehabilitation (CR) after myocardial 

infarction or coronary revascularization, 

then to (b) spread knowledge about the 

best practices to increase referrals to CR, 

and, finally, (c) to increase CR uptake. 

AHRQ evaluated TAKEheart to assess: 

• the extent and effectiveness of the 

dissemination and implementation 

efforts 

• the uptake and usage of Automatic 

Referral with Care Coordination and 

• levels of referral to CR at the end of 

the intervention. 

Evaluation results were used to 

improve the intervention and to provide 

guidance for future AHRQ 

dissemination and implementation 

projects. Two cohorts of ‘‘Partner 

Hospitals,’’ up to 125 hospitals in total, 

engaged in efforts to implement 

Automatic Referral with Care 

Coordination over twelve-month 

periods. The evaluation ascertained the 

diversity of hospitals engaged in the 

activities that contributed to (or 

hindered) their efforts, and the types of 

support which they reported having 

been most (and least) useful. This 

information was used to improve 

recruitment, technical assistance, and 

tools for the second cohort. 

In addition, hospitals—including 

those involved in the implementation— 

were invited to attend Affinity Group 

virtual meetings organized around 

specific topics of interest which are not 

intrinsic to Automatic Referral with 

Care Coordination. Hospital staff 

engaged in Affinity Groups created a 

vibrant Learning Community. The 

evaluation determined which Affinity 

Groups engaged the most participants of 

the Learning Community, and which 

resources participants determined the 

most useful. This information was used 

to develop resources which were 

available on a new, permanent website 

dedicated to improving CR. 

This study was conducted by AHRQ 

through its contractor, Abt Associates 

Inc., pursuant to AHRQ’s statutory 

authority to disseminate governmentfunded research relevant to comparative 

clinical effectiveness research. 42 U.S.C. 

299b–37(a). 

Method of Collection 

To collect data on the many facets of 

the intervention, the collection 

implemented multiple data collection 

tools, each of which had a specific 

purpose and set of respondents. 

1. Partner Hospital Champion Survey. 

Each Partner Hospital designated a 

‘‘Champion’’ who coordinated activities 

associated with implementing 

Automatic Referral with Care 

Coordination at the hospital and 

provide the Champion’s name and email 

address. Champions could have had any 

role in the hospital, although they were 

expected to be in relevant positions, 

such as cardiologists or quality 

improvement managers. We conducted 

online surveys of 125 Champions (one 

Champion per hospital). We used the 

email addresses to send the Champion 

a survey at two points: seven months 

after the start of implementation and at 

the end of the 12-month implementation 

period. The first survey focused on four 

constructs. First, it captured data about 

the hospital context, such as whether it 

had prior experience customizing an 

EMR or is a safety net hospital. Second, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77154 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 

it addressed the hospital’s decision to 

participate in TAKEheart. Third, it 

captured data on the CR programs the 

hospital refers to, whether the number 

or type has changed, and why. Fourth, 

it collected feedback on the training and 

technical assistance received. The 

second survey focused on three 

constructs. The first construct collected 

feedback on the TAKEheart 

components, including training, 

technical assistance, and use of the 

website. The second construct asked 

about the hospitals’ response to 

participating in TAKEheart, such as 

changes to referral workflow or CR 

programs. The third construct asked 

those Partner Hospitals that had not 

completed the process of implementing 

Automatic Referral with Care 

Coordination whether they anticipated 

continuing to work towards that goal 

and their confidence in succeeding. 

2. Partner Hospital Interviews. 

a. Interviews with Partner Hospital 

Champions. We selected, from each 

cohort, eight Partner Hospitals which 

demonstrated a strong interest in 

addressing underserved populations or 

reducing disparities in participation in 

cardiac rehabilitation. We conducted a 

key informant interview with the 

Champion of each selected Partner 

Hospital to delve into how they were 

addressing the needs of underserved 

populations by implementing 

Automatic Referral with Care 

Coordination. 

b. Interviews with Partner Hospital 

cardiologists. We selected, from each 

cohort, eight hospitals based on criteria 

selected in conversation with AHRQ, 

such as hospitals which serve specific 

populations, or have the same EMRs, 

which informed their experience 

customizing the EMR. We conducted 

semi-structured interviews with one 

cardiologist at each of the selected 

hospitals twice. In the second month of 

the cohort implementation, we asked 

about their needs, concerns, and 

expectations of the program. In the 11th 

month of the cohort implementation, we 

determined whether their concerns were 

addressed appropriately and adequately. 

c. Interviews with Partner Hospitals 

that withdraw. We expected that a small 

number of Partner Hospitals would 

withdraw from the cohort. We identified 

these hospitals by their lack of 

participation in training and technical 

assistance events; Technical Assistance 

(TA) Providers confirmed their 

withdrawal. We interviewed up to nine 

withdrawing hospitals to better 

understand the reason for withdrawal 

(e.g., a merger resulted in a loss of 

support for the intervention, Champion 

left), as well as facilitators and barriers 

of each hospitals’ approach to 

implementing Automatic Referral with 

Care Coordination. If more than nine 

hospitals withdrew, we ceased 

interviewing. 

3. Learning Community Participant 

Survey. We conducted online surveys of 

250 currently active Learning 

Community participants at two points 

in time, in months 18 and 31 of the 

project. We administered the survey by 

sending a link to an online survey to 

email addresses entered by virtual 

meeting participants during registration. 

The email described the purpose of the 

survey. 

4. Learning Community Follow-up 

Survey. We conducted a brief online 

survey with up to 15 Learning 

Community participants following the 

final virtual meeting for each of 10 

Affinity Group, to ascertain whether the 

hospitals were able to act on what they 

learned during the session. The total 

sample was 150 Learning Community 

participants. 

Estimated Annual Respondent Burden 

Exhibit 1 presents estimates of the 

reporting burden hours for the data 

collection efforts. Time estimates were 

based on prior experiences and what 

could reasonably be requested of 

participating health care organizations. 

The number of respondents listed in 

column A, Exhibit 1 reflects a projected 

90% response rate for data collection 

effort 1, and an 80% response rate for 

efforts 3 and 4 below. 

1. Partner Hospital Champion Survey. 

We assumed 113 hospital champions 

would complete the survey based on a 

90% response rate. It was expected to 

take up to 45 minutes to complete for 

a total of 169.5 hours to complete. 

2. Partner Hospital Interviews. Indepth interviews occured with select 

Partner Hospital staff. 

a. Interviews with Partner Hospital 

Champions. We had a single, 90 minute 

interview with eight Partner Hospital 

Champions, in each cohort, from Partner 

Hospital which have a common 

characteristic of particular interest, for a 

total of 24 hours. 

b. Interviews with Partner Hospital 

cardiologists. We held individual, up-to30 minute interviews with eight 

cardiologists, twice in each cohort, for a 

total of 16 hours. 

c. Interviews with Partner Hospitals 

that withdraw. We interviewed up to 

nine withdrawing hospitals for no more 

than 20 minutes to better understand 

the reason for withdrawal as well as 

facilitators and barriers, for a total of 2.7 

hours. 

3. Learning Community Participant 

Survey. We assumed 200 Learning 

Community participants would 

complete the survey based on an 80% 

response rate. It was expected to take up 

to 15 minutes to complete each survey 

for a total of 100 hours. 

Learning Community Follow-up 

Survey. We conducted a brief, up to 10 

minute, online survey of participants of 

each of just ten selected Affinity Groups 

at two months after the virtual meeting. 

We assumed 120 Learning Community 

participants would complete the survey 

based on an 80% response rate. It was 

expected to take up to 15 minutes to 

complete each survey for a total of 20.4 

hours. 

EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Data collection method or project activity 

A. 

Number of 

respondents 

B. 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

C. 

Hours per 

response 

D. 

Total burden 

hours 

1. Partner Hospital Champion Survey * ........................................................... 113 2 0.75 169.5 

2a. Interviews with Partner Hospital Champions ............................................. 16 1 1.5 24.0 

2b. Interviews with Partner Hospital Cardiologists .......................................... 16 2 0.5 16.0 

2c. Interviews with Partner Hospitals that withdraw ........................................ 9 1 0.3 2.7 

3. Learning Community Survey ** .................................................................... 200 2 0.25 100.0 

4. Learning Community Follow-up Survey ** ................................................... 120 1 0.17 20.4 

Total .......................................................................................................... 474 ........................ ........................ 332.6 

* Number of respondents (Column A) reflects a sample size assuming a 90% response rate for this data collection effort. 

** Number of respondents (Column A) reflects a sample size assuming an 80% response rate for this data collection effort. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Notices 77155 

Exhibit 2, below, presents the 

estimated annualized cost burden 

associated with the respondents’ time to 

participate in this research. The total 

cost burden was estimated to be about 

$21,497. 

EXHIBIT 2—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST BURDEN

Data collection method or project activity 

A. 

Number of 

respondents 

B. 

Total burden 

hours 

Average 

hourly 

wage rate 

Total cost 

burden 

1. Partner Hospital Champion Survey * ........................................................... 113 169.5 $72.27 $12,250 

2a. Interviews with Partner Hospital Champions ............................................. 16 24.0 72.27 1,734 

2b. Interviews with Partner Hospital Cardiologists .......................................... 16 16.0 96.58 1,545 

2c. Interviews with Partner Hospitals that withdraw ........................................ 9 2.7 72.27 195 

3. Learning Community Survey ** .................................................................... 200 100.0 47.95 4,795 

4. Learning Community Follow-up Survey ** ................................................... 120 20.4 47.95 978 

Total .......................................................................................................... 474 332.6 ........................ 21,497 

* Number of respondents (Column A) reflects a sample size assuming a 90% response rate for this data collection effort. 

** Number of respondents (Column A) reflects a sample size assuming an 80% response rate for this data collection effort. 

Request for Comments 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, 

comments on AHRQ’s information 

collection are requested with regard to 

any of the following: (a) whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

AHRQ’s health care research and health 

care information dissemination 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of AHRQ’s estimate of 

burden (including hours and costs) of 

the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and 

included in the Agency’s subsequent 

request for OMB approval of the 

proposed information collection. All 

comments will become a matter of 

public record. 

Dated: September 17, 2024. 

Marquita Cullom, 

Associate Director. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21564 Filed 9–19–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Meeting of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health, 

Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews, 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) announces the 

following meeting for the Subcommittee 

on Procedures Reviews (SPR) of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory 

Board). This meeting is open to the 

public, but without a public comment 

period. The public is welcome to submit 

written comments in advance of the 

meeting, to the contact person below. 

Written comments received in advance 

of the meeting will be included in the 

official record of the meeting. The 

public is also welcomed to listen to the 

meeting by joining the audio conference 

(information below). The audio 

conference line has 150 ports for callers. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

November 8, 2024, from 11 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., EST. Written comments must be 

received on or before November 1, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by mail to: Rashaun Roberts, Ph.D., 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, 1090 Tusculum 

Avenue, MS C–24, Cincinnati, Ohio 

45226. 

Meeting Information: Audio 

Conference Call via FTS Conferencing. 

The USA toll-free dial-in number is 1– 

866–659–0537; the pass code is 

9933701. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rashaun Roberts, Ph.D., Designated 

Federal Officer, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, 

1090 Tusculum Avenue, Mailstop C–24, 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, Telephone: 

(513) 533–6800, Toll Free 1(800) CDC– 

INFO, Email: ocas@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The Advisory Board was 

established under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000 to advise the 

President on a variety of policy and 

technical functions required to 

implement and effectively manage the 

new compensation program. Key 

functions of the Advisory Board include 

providing advice on the development of 

probability of causation guidelines that 

have been promulgated by the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) as a final rule; advice on 

methods of dose reconstruction, which 

have also been promulgated by HHS as 

a final rule; advice on the scientific 

validity and quality of dose estimation 

and reconstruction efforts being 

performed for purposes of the 

compensation program; and advice on 

petitions to add classes of workers to the 

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). In 

December 2000, the President delegated 

responsibility for funding, staffing, and 

operating the Advisory Board to HHS, 

which subsequently delegated this 

authority to CDC. NIOSH implements 

this responsibility for CDC. 

The charter was issued on August 3, 

2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, 

and rechartered under Executive Order 

14109 (September 29, 2023) on March 

22, 2024. Unless continued by the 

President the Board will terminate on 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1