60 day FRN

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Notices
For
additional information contact, Bryan
Rittenhouse, Office of Wastewater
Management (4203M), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564–0577; fax number: (202) 564–6384;
email address: rittenhouse.bryan@
epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

The draft permit, once finalized, will
replace the previous permit covering
stormwater discharges from industrial
facilities in EPA’s Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,
9, and 10 that expired September 29,
2013, and will provide coverage for
industrial facilities in areas where EPA
is the NPDES permitting authority in
EPA’s Regions 7 and 8. This draft permit
is similar to the previous permit and
will authorize the discharge of
stormwater in accordance with the
terms and conditions described therein.
EPA proposes to issue this permit for
five (5) years. EPA seeks comment on
the draft permit and on the
accompanying fact sheet.

Dated: November 25, 2013.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Dated: November 20, 2013.
Jose C. Font,
Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection
Division, EPA Region 2.
Dated: November 20, 2013.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA
Region 3.
Dated: November 19, 2013.
Tinka G. Hyde,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
Dated: November 19, 2013.
William K. Honker,
Director, Water Quality Protection Division,
EPA Region 6.
Dated: November 20, 2013.
Karen Flournoy,
Director, Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides
Division, EPA Region 7.
Dated: November 19, 2013.
Howard M. Cantor,
Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region
8.
Dated: November 19, 2013.
Jane Diamond,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.

II. Extension of Comment Period for the
NPDES Draft Multi-Sector General
Permit

Dated: November 19, 2013.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds,
EPA Region 10.

The EPA is extending the deadline for
submitting comments on the draft
NPDES stormwater Multi-Sector General
Permit (MSGP) to December 26, 2013.
The original deadline for comments,
based on a 60-day comment period, was
November 26, 2013. The EPA’s decision
responds to a request to extend the
comment deadline. The EPA believes
that this 30-day extension will assist in
providing an adequate amount of
additional time for the public to review
the action and to provide written
comments.

[FR Doc. 2013–28988 Filed 12–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
[60-Day–14–14DF]

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 or send
comments to LeRoy Richardson, 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:36 Dec 02, 2013

Jkt 232001

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

72677

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
Sexually Transmitted Disease
Services at US Colleges and
Universities: Where are we now?—
New—National Center for HIV/AIDS,
Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention
(NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC).
Background and Brief Description
Approximately 43% of the over 30
million 18–24 year olds in the United
States are currently enrolled in college
or graduate school. These institutions
comprise a mix of 2-year and 4-year
colleges, public and private institutions,
technical schools, and community
colleges. In the U.S., young adulthood is
the peak age group for many risk
behaviors including unprotected sex.
College students, who are typically at
the age of most risk for acquiring a
sexually transmitted disease (STD), may
face challenges when seeking sexual
and reproductive health care on
campus.
The last national study exploring the
availability of STD services in US
colleges and universities (2- and 4-year)
was conducted in 2001 and found that
only 60% (474/736) of schools had a
health center. Health centers were more
common among larger schools (greater
than 4,000 students) that were privately
funded and 4-year universities with
housing. Of the health centers provided,
66% provided STD services, 55%
provided obstetrical and gynecologic
care, and 54% provided contraceptive
services.
National Survey of Family Growth
(NSFG) data estimates that the
percentage of 18- to 22-year-olds ever
tested for HIV is 34.2%; and only 18%
reported being tested in the past year.
Although risk factors for HIV/STD
transmission (e.g., sex with multiple
partners, unprotected sex, and using
drugs or alcohol during sexual activity)
can be particularly evident among
college students in general, students
enrolled at colleges with significant

E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM

03DEN1

72678

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Notices

minority enrollment (SMEs) may face
additional challenges such as greater
risk of transmission during new sexual
encounters due to sexual partner
networks and limited access to quality
healthcare and prevention education.
Given this information, there is a great
deal of opportunity for expanding
access to care, especially among schools
which are unable to offer student health
services on campus. Many schools,
including both 2- and 4-year schools,
may find it more difficult to offer
student health services because of
constrained budgets or geographical
location. Depending on location, some
may serve a disproportionate number of
students from low socio-economic
backgrounds which means, in general,
their students are more likely to be unor underinsured or to be Medicaid
eligible.
CDC is proposing this information
collection to (1) provide an estimate of
the proportion of colleges not offering
health services on campus, (2) explore
the reasons as to why, and (3) describe
the current extent of US colleges and
universities provisions of health
services in regards to HIV/STD
education, prevention and treatment.
The information will be used to provide
technical assistance to colleges and
universities interested in alternative
solutions for providing health care
services to their students.
The list of eligible respondents comes
from the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS), using
2011 enrollment data. Applying our
criteria to include only active, 2- or 4year, degree granting, accredited public
or not for profit private schools, that
enrolled undergraduates and/or
graduate students located in the 50
states and the District of Columbia our
total population was 3,337 schools.
From these we selected a proportionally
stratified random sample of universities
and colleges to survey on their
provision of health services as they

After reading and agreeing to terms
outlined in the email letter, the
participant will click the included link
to the self-administered electronic
questionnaire (via SurveyMonkey).
Privacy risks are minimal. Only the
name, title and contact information of
the person filling out the survey will be
obtained for the purpose of tracking
participation and completion of
questionnaires. All electronic files will
be password controlled, accessible only
to fully authorized personnel, and
maintained and protected to the extent
allowable by law. Schools will have 3
weeks to respond to the survey.
Investigators will send a reminder at 1.5
weeks, 3 days prior to closeout, and
then day of. This may need to be
extended in order to achieve adequate
power for analyses.
Once all the surveys are returned, two
researchers will review and contact
schools about inconsistent or invalid
responses, and make corrections as
needed. Basic school characteristics will
be gathered from the IPEDs database on
each school (e.g. institution type,
funding type, size of enrollments,
region, etc.). We estimate 4–5 months
will be needed to complete data
collection.
The total estimated time frame for the
project, including administration of the
survey, collection period, data analysis
and writing, clearance and publication
of findings is 9–12 months. The results
and findings will be written for
publication in a peer-reviewed journal
and an aggregated, summary report will
be shared with all participating schools.
This data collection effort will also
allow investigators to provide technical
assistance to colleges and universities
interested in alternative solutions for
providing health care services to their
students.
Participation is voluntary and there
are no costs to respondents other than
their time.

relate to HIV & STD education,
treatment and prevention.
The stratified random sample was
based on enrollment size of school and
significant minority enrollment. Sample
size calculation also accounted for an
expected low response rate (30%) of
first time, online survey participants.
The total number of colleges and
universities to be surveyed will be
1,150.
Enrollment size was coded based on
enrollment number variables in the
IPEDS dataset. Significant minority
enrollment is based on two criteria: 1)
Legislation that designates colleges and
universities as Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) or as
Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs).
2) Enrollment-based criteria—Colleges
and Universities that are not HBCUs or
TCUs, and have at least 25% of the
student body that is of an ethnic
minority (American Indian or Alaska
Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,
mixed race, or those that do not meet
the 25% threshold for any one minority
group, but minority students as a whole
comprised at least 50% of the total
student body.
CDC investigators will email an
introductory letter inviting the contact
person at each school to participate in
the survey, noting that the questionnaire
should be completed by the person with
the most knowledge and access to
information about health services on
campus. The estimated burden per
respondent is approximately 45
minutes; 5 minutes for the introductory
letter and 40 minutes for the
questionnaire. The questionnaire will
collect information regarding various
aspects of health services provided by
the school. These include requirements
for student health insurance, preventive
services, testing and treatment of HIV
and STDs, partner management, and
accessibility of health services by
students.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS
Number of
respondents

Number of
responses per
respondent

Avg. burden
per response
(in hrs.)

Total burden
(in hrs.)

Type of respondents

Form name

Health Services Directors or Campus Administrators.
Health Services Directors or Campus Administrators.

Web-based survey ...........................

1,150

1

40/60

767

Introductory E-mail letter ..................

1,150

1

5/60

96

Total ...........................................

...........................................................

........................

........................

........................

863

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:36 Dec 02, 2013

Jkt 232001

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM

03DEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Notices
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. 2013–28855 Filed 12–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Submission for OMB Review:
Comment Request
Title: RPG National Cross-Site
Evaluation and Evaluation Technical
Assistance.
OMB No.: New Collection.
Description: The Children’s Bureau
within the Administration for Children
and Families of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services seeks
approval to collect information for the
Regional Partnership Grants to Increase
the Well-being of and to Improve
Permanency Outcomes for Children
Affected by Substance Abuse (known as
the Regional Partnership Grants
Program or ‘‘RPG’’) Cross-Site
Evaluation and Evaluation-Related
Technical Assistance project. Under
RPG, the Children’s Bureau has issued
17 grants to organizations such as child
welfare or substance abuse treatment
providers or family court systems to
develop interagency collaborations and
integration of programs, activities, and
services designed to increase well-being,
improve permanency, and enhance the
safety of children who are in an out-ofhome placement or are at risk of being
placed in out-of-home care as a result of
a parent’s or caretaker’s substance
abuse. The Child and Family Services
Improvement and Innovation Act (Pub.
L. 112–34) includes a targeted grants
program (section 437(f) of the Social
Security Act) that directs the Secretary
of Health and Human Services to
reserve a specified portion of the
appropriation for these Regional
Partnership Grants, to be used to
improve the well-being of children
affected by substance abuse. The overall
objective of the Cross-Site Evaluation
and Technical Assistance project (the
RPG Cross-Site Evaluation) is to plan,
develop, and implement a rigorous
national cross-site evaluation of the RPG
Grant Program, provide legislativelymandated performance measurement,
and furnish evaluation-related technical
assistance to the grantees in order to
improve the quality and rigor of their
local evaluations. The project will

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:36 Dec 02, 2013

Jkt 232001

evaluate the programs and activities
conducted through the RPG Grant
Program. The evaluation is being
undertaken by the Children’s Bureau
and its contractor Mathematica Policy
Research. The evaluation is being
implemented by Mathematica Policy
Research and its subcontractors, Walter
R. McDonald & Associates and Synergy
Enterprises.
The RPG Cross-Site Evaluation will
include the following components:
1. Implementation and Partnership
Study. The RPG cross-site
implementation and partnership study
will contribute to building the
knowledge base about effective
implementation strategies by examining
the process of implementation in the 17
RPG projects, with a focus on factors
shown in the research literature to be
associated with quality implementation
of evidence-based programs. This
component of the study will describe
the RPG projects’ target populations,
selected interventions and their fit with
the target populations, inputs to
implementation, and actual services
provided (including dosage, duration,
content, adherence to curricula, and
participant responsiveness). It will
examine the key attributes of the
regional partnerships that grantees
develop (for example, partnerships
among child welfare and substance
abuse treatment providers, social
services, and the courts). It will describe
the characteristics and roles of the
partner organizations, the extent of
coordination and collaboration, and
their potential to sustain the
partnerships after the grant ends. Key
data collection activities of the
implementation and partnership study
are: (1) Conducting site visits during
which researchers will interview RPG
program directors, managers,
supervisors, and frontline staff who
work directly with families; (2)
administering a survey to frontline staff
involved in providing direct services to
children, adults, and families; (3) asking
grantees to provide information about
implementation and their partnerships
as part of their federally required semiannual progress reports; (4) obtaining
service use data from grantees,
enrollment date and demographics of
enrollees, exit date and reason, and
service participation, to be entered into
a web-based system developed and
operated by Mathematica Policy
Research and its subcontractors; and (5)
administering a survey to
representatives of the partner
organizations.
2. Outcomes Study. The goal of the
outcomes study is to describe the
changes that occur in children and

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

72679

families who participate in the RPG
programs. This study will describe
participant outcomes in five domains:
(1) Child well-being, (2) family
functioning/stability, (3) adult recovery
from substance use, (4) child
permanency, and (5) child safety. Two
main types of outcome data will be
used—both of which are being collected
by RPG grantees: (1) Administrative
child welfare and adult substance abuse
treatment records and (2) standardized
instruments administered to the parents
and/or caregivers. The Children’s
Bureau is requiring grantees to obtain
and report specified administrative
records, and to use a prescribed set of
standardized instruments. Grantees will
provide these data to the Cross-Site
Evaluation team twice a year by
uploading them to a data system
developed and operated by Mathematica
Policy Research and its subcontractors.
3. Impact Study. The goal of the
impact study is to assess the impact of
the RPG interventions on child, adult,
and family outcomes by comparing
outcomes for people enrolled in RPG
services to those in comparison groups,
such as people who do not receive RPG
services or receive only a subset of the
services. The impact study will use
demographic and outcome data on both
program (treatment) and comparison
groups from a subset of grantees with
appropriate local evaluation designs
such as randomized controlled trials or
strong quasi-experimental designs; 7 of
the 17 grantees have such designs. Sitespecific impacts will be estimated for
these seven grantees. Aggregated impact
estimates will be created by pooling
impact estimates across appropriate
sites to obtain a more powerful
summary of the effectiveness of RPG
interventions.
In addition to conducting local
evaluations and participating in the RPG
Cross-Site Evaluation, the RPG grantees
are legislatively required to report
performance indicators aligned with
their proposed program strategies and
activities. A key strategy of the RPG
Cross-Site Evaluation is to minimize
burden on the grantees by ensuring that
the cross-site evaluation, which
includes all grantees in a study that
collects data to report on
implementation, the partnerships, and
participant characteristics and
outcomes, fully meets the need for
performance reporting. Thus, rather
than collecting separate evaluation and
performance indicator data, the grantees
need only participate in the cross-site
evaluation. In addition, using the
standardized instruments that the
Children’s Bureau has specified will
ensure that grantees have valid and

E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM

03DEN1