Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 80908-80909 [2011-33095]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
80908
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Notices
demonstration project, please contact
Ms. Shane Pham at (703) 681–0039.
we consider the ADFMs’ use of ERs to
be too high.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
b. Implementation
This demonstration will be effective
60 days from the date of this notice in
the Federal Register for a period of
thirty-six (36) months.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
a. Background
Access for acute episodic primary
care continues to be in high demand by
TRICARE Prime beneficiaries. The
current regulations require that if a
Prime beneficiary seeks care from a
provider other than their Primary Care
Manager (PCM), they must first obtain a
referral. Otherwise, the care will be
covered under the point-of-service
option at greater out-of-pocket cost to
the Prime beneficiary. This includes
urgent care which TRICARE defines as
medically necessary treatment for an
illness or injury that would not result in
further disability or death if not treated
immediately but that requires
professional attention within 24 hours.
On the other hand, emergency care
defined as a medical, maternity or
psychiatric condition that would lead a
‘‘prudent layperson’’ (someone with
average knowledge of health and
medicine) to believe that a serious
medical condition existed, or the
absence of medical attention would
result in a threat to his or her life, limb
or sight and requires immediate medical
treatment or which has painful
symptoms requiring immediate
attention to relieve suffering, does not
require an authorization. Often when a
Prime beneficiary needs urgent care
after hours or when the PCM does not
have available appointments, the Prime
beneficiary will seek care from civilian
sources such as emergency rooms (ER).
While many Prime beneficiaries pay no
out-of pocket costs for ER services, the
average cost for an ER visit is much
higher than an urgent care visit. In many
cases, using the ER is not necessary, and
a patient’s condition can be treated
through urgent care. Additionally for
our ADFMs in transition, the
Department has seen a higher incident
of ER usage by this population. It
appears that the difficulty in contacting
the PMS while traveling or in a new
location may result in the beneficiary’s
higher hospital ER services for care that
might be suitably be obtained at an
urgent care center.
In 2010, we examined the degree to
which ADFMs used ERs for the top 14
medical conditions for which they
sought care. We found that ADFM
military treatment facility enrollees
received about 7 percent of their visits
from ERs while civilian prime enrollees
received 4 percent of their care from
emergency rooms. Because many of the
top 14 conditions are acute in nature,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:00 Dec 23, 2011
Jkt 226001
c. Evaluation
The results of this Demonstration will
allow a focused study of the impact of
this process on: (1) The reduction of ER
utilization and resulting costs, (2)
assessment of the availability and
accessibility of less expensive acute care
services such as UCCs, (3) reduction of
administrative processes. The
evaluation/analysis of the
demonstration would use Fiscal Year
2011 as the base line with follow-up
data analysis conducted at each 6month interval throughout the 36 month
period to monitor of ER and TRICARE
authorized UCC utilization workload
and cost (claims data). Success of the
demonstration would be determined by
consistent shifts in health care
utilization from ERs to a TRICARE
authorized UCCs by 15–20%. A less
than 5% shift in utilization from the ER
to a TRICARE authorized UCCs would
be considered insignificant.
Dated: December 21, 2011.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–33065 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
[Docket ID USA–2007–0014]
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Army Corps of Engineers,
Engineer Research and Development
Center/Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory (ERDC/CERL),
DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In compliance with Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers—ERDC/CERL
announces a proposed new public
information collection and seeks public
comment on the provisions thereof.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the information collection on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
DATES: Consideration will be given to all
comments received by February 27,
2012.
You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and title,
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Federal Docket Management
System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–1160.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name, docket
number and title for this Federal
Register document. The general policy
for comments and other submissions
from members of the public is to make
these submissions available for public
viewing on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
ADDRESSES:
To
request more information on this
proposed information collection or to
obtain a copy of the proposal and
associated collection instruments,
please write to: Larry Pater, Ph.D., P.E.,
Program/Project Manager, Noise R&D,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center (ERDC),
Construction Engineering Research
Laboratory (CERL), 2902 Farber Drive,
Champaign, IL 61821.
Title and OMB Number: Assessing
Human Response to Military Impulse
Noise; OMB Control Number 0710—
0015.
Needs and Uses: The information
collection requirement is necessary to
obtain information on the relationship
between community annoyance and
complaints, related to impulsive noise
from military installations. The
information will provide the necessary
tools and guidance for military
installations to effectively balance the
need for training operations at military
installations with public safety and
welfare. Participation by respondents is
strictly voluntary, and the surveys are
intended solely (or primarily) to ensure
that facilities can adequately respond to
any concerns the public may have.
Affected Public: Individuals and
households.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Notices
• 1 response for 525 General
Community Survey respondents at Site
#2 (30 minutes per survey equaling
262.5 hours).
Æ 1 response for 175 panel survey
respondents.
Æ 1 response for 350 cross-sectional
survey respondents.
Total Responses for Year 3: 8,825.
Annual Burden Hours
Year 1 (2007): 37.5 hours.
Year 2 (2008): 1,575 hours.
Year 3 (2009): 700 hours.
Year 4 (2010): 1,287.5 hours.
Year 5 (2011): 412.5 hours.
Total Number of Burden Hours for
5 Years: 4,012.5 hours.
Number of Respondents
Year 1 (2007): 75.
Year 2 (2008): 1,575.
Year 3 (2009): 575.
Year 4 (2010): 725.
Year 5 (2011): 25.
Total Number of Respondents for
5 Years: 2,975.
Year 4
Responses per Respondent
Year 1
• 1 response for 50 Qualitative
Personal Interview respondents in three
locations (30 minutes per interview
equaling 25 hours).
• 1 response for 25 baseline
interviews for the respondents
participating in the In-situ study at
location #1 (30 minutes per interview
equaling 12.5 hours).
Total Responses for Year 1: 75.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Year 2
• 16,750 (estimated) responses for 25
In-situ survey participants (670
responses per person) at location #1 (3
minutes per response equaling 837.5
hours).
• 1,225 responses for 1,050 General
Community Survey (cross-sectional
sample) respondents (30 minutes per
survey equaling 612.5 hours).
Æ 2 responses for 175 panel survey
respondents at Site #1.
Æ 1 response for 525 cross-sectional
survey respondents at Site #1.
Æ 1 response for 175 panel survey
respondents at Site #2.
Æ 1 response for 175 cross-sectional
survey respondents at Site #2.
• 1 response for 500 complaint survey
respondents (15 minutes per survey =
125 hours).
Total Responses for Year 2: 18,475.
Year 3
• 8,250 (estimated) responses for 25
In-situ survey respondents (330
responses per person) at location #1 (3
minutes per response equaling 412.5
hours).
• 1 response for 25 post measurement
interviews for In-situ study participants
at location #1 (30 minutes per interview
equaling 12.5 hours).
• 1 response for 25 baseline
interviews for the respondents
participating in the In-situ study at
location #2 (30 minutes per interview
equaling 12.5 hours).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:00 Dec 23, 2011
Jkt 226001
• 16,750 (estimated) responses for 25
In-situ survey respondents (670
responses per person) at location #2 (3
minutes per response equaling 837.5
hours).
• 1 response for 25 post measurement
interviews In-situ participants at
location #2 (30 minutes per interview
equaling 12.5 hours).
• 875 responses for General
Community Survey at Site #3 (30
minutes per survey equaling 437.5
hours).
Æ 2 responses for 175 panel survey
respondents at Site #3.
Æ 1 response for 525 cross-sectional
survey respondents at Site #3.
Total Respones for Year 4: 17,650.
Year 5
• 8,250 (estimated) responses for 25
In-situ survey participants at Location
#2 (330 responses per person) at
location #2 (3 minutes per response
equaling 412.5 hours).
Total Responses for Year 5: 8,250.
Total Number of Responses for
5 Years: 53,275.
Average Burden per Response
Qualitative Personal Interview: 30
minutes.
Baseline Interview: 30 minutes.
Post Measurement Interview: 30
minutes.
In-situ Survey: 3 minutes.
General Community Survey: 30
minutes.
Complaint Survey: 15 minutes.
Frequency of Responses
Qualitative Personal Interview: One
time per installation.
Baseline Interview: One time per
installation.
Post Measurement Interview: One
time per installation.
In-situ Survey: On occasion for 12
months.
General Community Survey
Panel Sample: Two times per
installation.
Cross-sectional sample: One time per
installation.
Complaint Survey: One time per
installation.
Summary of Information Collection
Respondents are individuals living in
the vicinity of selected military
installations who regularly experience
impulsive noise from explosions and
heavy weapons blasts. Information
collection includes several different
surveys:
1. A qualitative personal interview to
explore respondents experiences,
understanding, and terminology to
refine the survey questions (to be
conducted at 2 installations).
2. An In-situ study where respondents
are asked to respond to a brief set of 5–
6 questions on a PDA whenever they
experience an impulsive noise event (to
be conducted at 2 installations).
3. A baseline interview for
respondents participating in the In-situ
study (to be conducted at 2
installations).
4. A post measurement interview for
respondents participating in the In-situ
study (to be conducted at 2
installations).
5. A general community survey to
gather responses to questions about the
impact of impulsive noise events from
a large representative sample of
community residents (to be conducted
at 3 installations).
6. A complaint survey that gathers
data on response to a specific noise
event for which one or more complaints
are received by the military installation.
For each recorded noise complaint, a
sample of 10 households in the
immediate vicinity of the complainant,
as well as the complainant will be
surveyed (to be conducted at 1
installation).
The study will involve communities
surrounding 3 different military
installations to ensure the results and
dose-response models can be
generalized and applied to other U.S.
military installations.
Participation by respondents is
strictly voluntary, and the surveys are
intended solely (or primarily) to ensure
that facilities can adequately respond to
any concerns the public may have.
Dated: December 21, 2011.
Aaron Siegel,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011–33095 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
80909
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80908-80909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33095]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
[Docket ID USA-2007-0014]
Proposed Collection; Comment Request
AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development
Center/Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC/CERL), DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--ERDC/CERL announces a
proposed new public information collection and seeks public comment on
the provisions thereof. 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 information collection;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
information collection on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by February
27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and
title, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov as they are received without
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on this
proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and
associated collection instruments, please write to: Larry Pater, Ph.D.,
P.E., Program/Project Manager, Noise R&D, U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center (ERDC), Construction Engineering Research
Laboratory (CERL), 2902 Farber Drive, Champaign, IL 61821.
Title and OMB Number: Assessing Human Response to Military Impulse
Noise; OMB Control Number 0710--0015.
Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary
to obtain information on the relationship between community annoyance
and complaints, related to impulsive noise from military installations.
The information will provide the necessary tools and guidance for
military installations to effectively balance the need for training
operations at military installations with public safety and welfare.
Participation by respondents is strictly voluntary, and the surveys are
intended solely (or primarily) to ensure that facilities can adequately
respond to any concerns the public may have.
Affected Public: Individuals and households.
[[Page 80909]]
Annual Burden Hours
Year 1 (2007): 37.5 hours.
Year 2 (2008): 1,575 hours.
Year 3 (2009): 700 hours.
Year 4 (2010): 1,287.5 hours.
Year 5 (2011): 412.5 hours.
Total Number of Burden Hours for 5 Years: 4,012.5 hours.
Number of Respondents
Year 1 (2007): 75.
Year 2 (2008): 1,575.
Year 3 (2009): 575.
Year 4 (2010): 725.
Year 5 (2011): 25.
Total Number of Respondents for 5 Years: 2,975.
Responses per Respondent
Year 1
1 response for 50 Qualitative Personal Interview
respondents in three locations (30 minutes per interview equaling 25
hours).
1 response for 25 baseline interviews for the respondents
participating in the In-situ study at location 1 (30 minutes
per interview equaling 12.5 hours).
Total Responses for Year 1: 75.
Year 2
16,750 (estimated) responses for 25 In-situ survey
participants (670 responses per person) at location 1 (3
minutes per response equaling 837.5 hours).
1,225 responses for 1,050 General Community Survey (cross-
sectional sample) respondents (30 minutes per survey equaling 612.5
hours).
[cir] 2 responses for 175 panel survey respondents at Site
1.
[cir] 1 response for 525 cross-sectional survey respondents at Site
1.
[cir] 1 response for 175 panel survey respondents at Site
2.
[cir] 1 response for 175 cross-sectional survey respondents at Site
2.
1 response for 500 complaint survey respondents (15
minutes per survey = 125 hours).
Total Responses for Year 2: 18,475.
Year 3
8,250 (estimated) responses for 25 In-situ survey
respondents (330 responses per person) at location 1 (3
minutes per response equaling 412.5 hours).
1 response for 25 post measurement interviews for In-situ
study participants at location 1 (30 minutes per interview
equaling 12.5 hours).
1 response for 25 baseline interviews for the respondents
participating in the In-situ study at location 2 (30 minutes
per interview equaling 12.5 hours).
1 response for 525 General Community Survey respondents at
Site 2 (30 minutes per survey equaling 262.5 hours).
[cir] 1 response for 175 panel survey respondents.
[cir] 1 response for 350 cross-sectional survey respondents.
Total Responses for Year 3: 8,825.
Year 4
16,750 (estimated) responses for 25 In-situ survey
respondents (670 responses per person) at location 2 (3
minutes per response equaling 837.5 hours).
1 response for 25 post measurement interviews In-situ
participants at location 2 (30 minutes per interview equaling
12.5 hours).
875 responses for General Community Survey at Site
3 (30 minutes per survey equaling 437.5 hours).
[cir] 2 responses for 175 panel survey respondents at Site
3.
[cir] 1 response for 525 cross-sectional survey respondents at Site
3.
Total Respones for Year 4: 17,650.
Year 5
8,250 (estimated) responses for 25 In-situ survey
participants at Location 2 (330 responses per person) at
location 2 (3 minutes per response equaling 412.5 hours).
Total Responses for Year 5: 8,250.
Total Number of Responses for 5 Years: 53,275.
Average Burden per Response
Qualitative Personal Interview: 30 minutes.
Baseline Interview: 30 minutes.
Post Measurement Interview: 30 minutes.
In-situ Survey: 3 minutes.
General Community Survey: 30 minutes.
Complaint Survey: 15 minutes.
Frequency of Responses
Qualitative Personal Interview: One time per installation.
Baseline Interview: One time per installation.
Post Measurement Interview: One time per installation.
In-situ Survey: On occasion for 12 months.
General Community Survey
Panel Sample: Two times per installation.
Cross-sectional sample: One time per installation.
Complaint Survey: One time per installation.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary of Information Collection
Respondents are individuals living in the vicinity of selected
military installations who regularly experience impulsive noise from
explosions and heavy weapons blasts. Information collection includes
several different surveys:
1. A qualitative personal interview to explore respondents
experiences, understanding, and terminology to refine the survey
questions (to be conducted at 2 installations).
2. An In-situ study where respondents are asked to respond to a
brief set of 5-6 questions on a PDA whenever they experience an
impulsive noise event (to be conducted at 2 installations).
3. A baseline interview for respondents participating in the In-
situ study (to be conducted at 2 installations).
4. A post measurement interview for respondents participating in
the In-situ study (to be conducted at 2 installations).
5. A general community survey to gather responses to questions
about the impact of impulsive noise events from a large representative
sample of community residents (to be conducted at 3 installations).
6. A complaint survey that gathers data on response to a specific
noise event for which one or more complaints are received by the
military installation. For each recorded noise complaint, a sample of
10 households in the immediate vicinity of the complainant, as well as
the complainant will be surveyed (to be conducted at 1 installation).
The study will involve communities surrounding 3 different military
installations to ensure the results and dose-response models can be
generalized and applied to other U.S. military installations.
Participation by respondents is strictly voluntary, and the surveys
are intended solely (or primarily) to ensure that facilities can
adequately respond to any concerns the public may have.
Dated: December 21, 2011.
Aaron Siegel,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-33095 Filed 12-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
