Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 55401 

vaccines or future common protein 

pneumococcal vaccines. 

Inventors: Maria da Gloria Carvalho, 

Jacquelyn S. Sampson, Edwin W. Ades, 

George Carlone and Karen McCaustland, 

CDC Ref. #: I–001–05. 

Dated: September 9, 2005. 

James D. Seligman, 

Associate Director for Program Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 05–18791 Filed 9–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health 

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) 

announces the following committee 

meeting: 

Name: Working Group of the Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

(ABRWH), National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 

Time and Date: 10 a.m.–5 p.m., October 6, 

2005. 

Place: Westin Cincinnati Hotel, 21 E. 5th 

Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Telephone: 

(513) 621–7700; Fax: (513) 852–5670. 

Status: Open to the public, but without a 

public comment period. 

Background: The ABRWH was established 

under the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act 

(EEOICPA) of 2000 to advise the President, 

delegated to the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), on a variety of policy 

and technical functions required to 

implement and effectively manage the new 

compensation program. Key functions of the 

Board include providing advice on the 

development of probability of causation 

guidelines which have been promulgated by 

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 Board to HHS, which 

subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. 

NIOSH implements this responsibility for 

CDC. 

Purpose: This board is charged with (a) 

providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on 

the development of guidelines under 

Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice 

to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific 

validity and quality of dose reconstruction 

efforts performed for this Program; and (c) 

upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advise 

the Secretary on whether there is a class of 

employees at any Department of Energy 

facility who were exposed to radiation but for 

whom it is not feasible to estimate their 

radiation dose, and on whether there is 

reasonable likelihood that such radiation 

doses may have endangered the health of 

members of this class. 

Matters to be Discussed: The agenda for 

this working group meeting will focus on the 

discussions of Site Profile Reviews, 

particularly Bethlehem Steel, Y–12, and the 

Savannah River Site; discussions of Task 3 of 

the contract with S. Cohen & Associates 

(SC&A) Review; and other SC&A Review 

activities. 

The agenda is subject to change as 

priorities dictate. 

In the event a member of the working 

group cannot attend, written comments may 

be submitted. Any written comments 

received will be provided at the meeting and 

should be submitted to the contact person 

below well in advance of the meeting. 

Contact Person for More Information: Dr. 

Lewis V. Wade, Executive Secretary, NIOSH, 

CDC, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, 

Ohio 45226. Telephone: (513) 533–6825, fax: 

(513) 533–6826. 

The Director, Management Analysis and 

Services Office, has been delegated the 

authority to sign Federal Register notices 

pertaining to announcements of meetings and 

other committee management activities for 

both CDC and the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry. 

Dated: September 16, 2005. 

Alvin Hall, 

Director, Management Analysis and Services 

Office, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 05–18905 Filed 9–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services 

Notice of Hearing: Reconsideration of 

Disapproval of Oklahoma State Plan 

Amendment 04–06 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of hearing. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces an 

administrative hearing to be held on 

October 27, 2005, at 9 a.m. in 

Conference Room 820, 1301 Young 

Street, Dallas, Texas, to reconsider our 

decision to disapprove Oklahoma State 

Plan Amendment 04–06. 

Closing Date: Requests to participate 

in the hearing as a party must be 

received by the presiding officer by 

October 6, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen Scully-Hayes, Presiding 

Officer, CMS, Lord Baltimore Drive, 

Mail Stop LB–23–20, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21244, Telephone: (410) 786–

2055. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice announces an administrative 

hearing to reconsider CMS’ decision to 

disapprove Oklahoma State Plan 

Amendment (SPA) 04–06, which was 

submitted on September 23, 2004. 

Under SPA 04–06, Oklahoma sought to 

increase the per diem rate for residential 

behavioral management services 

provided to children residing in 

therapeutic foster care homes. By letter 

dated June 20, 2005, CMS disapproved 

the SPA because it does not comport 

with the requirements set forth in title 

XIX of the Social Security Act (the Act) 

as discussed below: 

At issue in this reconsideration is 

whether the State’s payment 

methodology complies with section 

1902(a)(4) of the Act, which requires 

that the State plan must provide for 

such methods of administration as are 

found by the Secretary to be necessary 

for the proper and efficient 

administration of the plan. The 

regulations at 42 CFR 430.10 and 430.12 

require that the State plan and 

amendments contain all information 

necessary for the CMS to determine 

whether the plan can be approved to 

serve as a basis for Federal financial 

participation in the State program. The 

State’s payment methodology is not 

explained in sufficient detail for CMS to 

determine whether the proposed 

increase is consistent with proper and 

efficient administration of the plan, as 

required by section 1902(a)(4). 

Also at issue is whether an increase 

in the State’s per diem rate is consistent 

with section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act, 

which requires that States have methods 

and procedures to ensure that payments 

are consistent with efficiency, economy, 

and quality of care. The State’s per diem 

rate represents a bundled payment 

methodology wherein the State pays a 

single rate for one or more of a group of 

different services furnished to an 

eligible individual during a fixed period 

of time. The payment is the same 

regardless of the number of services 

furnished, the specific costs, or 

otherwise available rates. The State has 

not provided sufficient information to 

determine whether the bundled rate for 

behavioral management services, and 

the proposed increase, accurately reflect 

true costs or reasonable fees for the 

services included in the bundle, and 

whether the proposed increase in 

Medicaid payment is due to permissible 

55402 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 

increases in costs of Medicaid services 

specifically. 

In summary, the State lacks a clear 

and auditable methodology for setting 

the payment rate and justifying the 

proposed payment increase consistent 

with the requirement of sections 

1902(a)(4) and 1902(a)(30)(A). 

For the reasons cited above, and after 

consulting with the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services, as required by 

Federal regulations at 42 CFR 

430.15(c)(2), CMS disapproved 

Oklahoma SPA 04–06. 

Section 1116 of the Act and Federal 

regulations at 42 CFR part 430, establish 

Department procedures that provide an 

administrative hearing for 

reconsideration of a disapproval of a 

State plan or plan amendment. CMS is 

required to publish a copy of the notice 

to a State Medicaid agency that informs 

the agency of the time and place of the 

hearing, and the issues to be considered. 

If we subsequently notify the agency of 

additional issues that will be considered 

at the hearing, we will also publish that 

notice. 

Any individual or group that wants to 

participate in the hearing as a party 

must petition the presiding officer 

within 15 days after publication of this 

notice, in accordance with the 

requirements contained at 42 CFR 

430.76(b)(2). Any interested person or 

organization that wants to participate as 

amicus curiae must petition the 

presiding officer before the hearing 

begins in accordance with the 

requirements contained at 42 CFR 

430.76(c). If the hearing is later 

rescheduled, the presiding officer will 

notify all participants. 

The notice to Oklahoma announcing 

an administrative hearing to reconsider 

the disapproval of its SPA reads as 

follows: 

Mr. Howard J. Pallotta, 

General Counsel, 

Oklahoma Health Care Authority, 

Lincoln Plaza, 4545 N. Lincoln Boulevard, 

Suite 124, Oklahoma City, OK 73105. 

Dear Mr. Pallotta: I am responding to your 

request for reconsideration of the decision to 

disapprove Oklahoma State plan amendment 

(SPA) 04–06, which was submitted on 

September 23, 2004, and disapproved on 

June 20, 2005. 

Under SPA 04–06, Oklahoma sought to 

increase the per diem rate for residential 

behavioral management services provided to 

children residing in therapeutic foster care 

homes. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) disapproved the SPA because 

it does not comport with the requirements set 

forth in title XIX of the Act. 

At issue in this reconsideration is whether 

the State’s payment methodology complies 

with section 1902(a)(4) of the Act, which 

requires that the State plan must provide for 

such methods of administration as are found 

by the Secretary to be necessary for the 

proper and efficient administration of the 

plan. The regulations at sections 42 CFR 

430.10 and 430.12 require that the State plan 

and amendments contain all information 

necessary for CMS to determine whether the 

plan can be approved to serve as a basis for 

Federal financial participation in the State 

program. The State’s payment methodology 

is not explained in sufficient detail for CMS 

to determine whether the proposed increase 

is consistent with proper and efficient 

administration of the plan, as required by 

section 1902(a)(4). 

Also at issue is whether an increase in the 

State’s per diem rate is consistent with 

section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act, which 

requires that States have methods and 

procedures to assure that payments are 

consistent with efficiency, economy, and 

quality of care. The State’s per diem rate 

represents a bundled payment methodology 

wherein the State pays a single rate for one 

or more of a group of different services 

furnished to an eligible individual during a 

fixed period of time. The payment is the 

same regardless of the number of services 

furnished, or the specific costs, or otherwise 

available rates. The State has not provided 

sufficient information to determine whether 

the bundled rate for behavioral management 

services, and the proposed increase, 

accurately reflect true costs or reasonable fees 

for the services included in the bundle and 

whether the proposed increase in Medicaid 

payment is due to permissible increases in 

costs of Medicaid services specifically. 

In summary, the State lacks a clear and 

auditable methodology for setting the 

payment rate and justifying the proposed 

payment increase consistent with the 

requirement of sections 1902(a)(4) and 

1902(a)(30)(A). 

For the reasons cited above, and after 

consulting with the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, as required by Federal 

regulations at 42 CFR section 430.15(c)(2), 

CMS disapproved Oklahoma SPA 04–06. 

I am scheduling a hearing to be held on 

October 27, 2005, at 9 a.m. at 1301 Young 

Street, Conference Room 820, Dallas, Texas, 

to reconsider the decision to disapprove SPA 

04–06. If this date is not acceptable, we 

would be glad to set another date that is 

mutually agreeable to the parties. The 

hearing will be governed by the procedures 

prescribed at 42 CFR part 430. 

I am designating Ms. Kathleen ScullyHayes as the presiding officer. If these 

arrangements present any problems, please 

contact the presiding officer. In order to 

facilitate any communication which may be 

necessary between the parties to the hearing, 

please notify the presiding officer to indicate 

acceptability of the hearing date that has 

been scheduled and provide names of the 

individuals who will represent the State at 

the hearing. The presiding officer may be 

reached at (410) 786–2055. 

Sincerely, 

Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D. 

Section 1116 of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. section 1316); 42 CFR section 

430.18. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 13.714, Medicaid Assistance 

Program) 

Dated: September 15, 2005. 

Mark B. McClellan, 

Administrator, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services. 

[FR Doc. 05–18843 Filed 9–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

Proposed Information Collection 

Activity; Comment Request 

Proposed Projects: 

Title: Evaluation of Child Care 

Subsidy Strategies. 

OMB No.: New Collection. 

Description: To conduct four 

experiments to test aspects of the child 

care subsidy system. Two simultaneous 

experiments will occur in Cook County, 

Illinois; one will occur in Washington 

State; and one will occur in 

Massachusetts. 

Illinois. The State of Illinois has 

agreed to conduct two simultaneous 

experiments, which will occur in Cook 

County. The first will test the impact of 

receiving a child care subsidy on 

parental employment and income, and 

on the stability of child care 

arrangements; the second experiment 

will test the impact of losing a subsidy 

on the same set of outcomes. For the 

first experiment, families with incomes 

above the current income eligibility 

ceiling who apply for subsidies will be 

approved to receive subsidies. In the 

second experiment, families in the 

treatment group with incomes above the 

eligibility ceiling who apply to be 

recertified to continue using subsidies 

will remain eligible. In addition, each 

experiment will test the effects of a 

longer certification period by certifying 

eligibility for some families for six 

months and other families for one year. 

Families in the two treatment groups 

will retain eligibility for subsidies over 

the two-year study period, provided 

their income remains below the 

experimental limit and they comply 

with other requirements (e.g., continue 

to work). Outcomes will be measured 

through administrative records and 

periodic interviews with parents. 

Washington. In Washington State, the 

study will test a co-payment schedule 

that smoothes out what are currently 

abrupt increases in co-payments that 

occur when a family moves from one 

income category to the next and reduces 

the co-payment burden for many