Cooperative Agreement for State-Based Surveillance Activities Sentinel Event Notification Systems for Occupational Risk (SENSOR); Notice of Availability of Funds for Fiscal Year 1997

Federal RegisterJun 18, 1997

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[Announcement Number 708]

Cooperative Agreement for State-Based Surveillance Activities--

Sentinel Event Notification Systems for Occupational Risk (SENSOR);

Notice of Availability of Funds for Fiscal Year 1997

Introduction

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Nation's

Prevention Agency, announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 1997

funds for cooperative agreements with State and territorial departments

of health (or other State or territorial governmental agencies in

collaboration with a department of health) to establish and/or expand

surveillance for occupational diseases and injuries.

CDC is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease

prevention objectives of Healthy People 2000, a national activity to

reduce morbidity and mortality and improve the quality of life. This

announcement is related to the priority area of Occupational Safety and

Health. (For ordering a copy of Healthy People 2000, see the Section

Where to Obtain Additional Information.)

Authority

This program is authorized under the Public Health Service Act, as

amended, section 301(a) (42 U.S.C. 241(a)) and the Occupational Safety

and Health Act of 1970, section 20(a) and 22(29 U.S.C. 669(a) and 671).

The applicable program regulation is 42 CFR part 52.

Smoke-Free Workplace

CDC strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-

free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products, and

Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in

certain facilities that receive Federal funds in which education,

library, day care, health care, and early childhood development

services are provided to children.

Eligible Applicants

Eligible applicants are the official State or territorial health

departments or other official State or territorial agencies or their

bona fide agents, with occupational safety and health jurisdiction.

Applicants other than the health department must apply in conjunction

with their State or territorial health department.

Applicants may apply for funding under one or both of the two

surveillance categories (SENSOR Experimentation and/or SENSOR Field-

Testing). Under each category, applicants may apply for funding for

single or multiple target conditions. We intend to support surveillance

for no more than four target conditions per State.

Note: Please review Funding Priorities for CDC/NIOSH's selection

of priority funding.

Availability of Funds

Approximately $2 million is available in FY 1997. It is expected

that the awards will begin on or about September 30, 1997, and will be

made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to

three years for SENSOR Experimentation, and five years for SENSOR Field

Testing. Funding estimates may vary and are subject to change.

Continuation awards within the project period will be made on the

basis of satisfactory progress and the availability of funds.

Approximately $200,000 per year in additional funding from the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is available to support follow-up

activities for SENSOR Field-Testing awards for the surveillance of

acute occupational pesticide illness case reports.

Distribution of funds among the two categories of activities as

described in the Background section is anticipated to be as follows:

A. Sensor Experimentation

Between $200,000 and $900,000 will be available for SENSOR

Experimentation. We intend to fund a minimum of two proposals in this

[[Page 33083]]

category. The average award will be $100,000 for each target condition.

Individual awards for each condition may range from $85,000 to

$115,000, depending on the number of conditions under surveillance, the

scope of the surveillance program, the size of the State, and the stage

of development of the current State program. CDC/NIOSH funding priority

is applicable. See ``Funding Priorities.''

B. SENSOR Field-Testing

Between $500,000 and $1,800,000 will be available for SENSOR Field-

Testing #1 and #2. A total of approximately 11 awards will be funded,

the final number of awards reflecting the minimums below and the

overall priority score ranking among all applications received under

both SENSOR Experimentation and Field-testing. These awards will be

made in two categories as follows:

1. Sensor Field-Testing #1--(Pesticide Surveillance) We intend to

fund up to six proposals for pesticide surveillance in this category.

Approximately $600,000 is available for funding. The average award will

be $100,000 for each target condition. Individual awards for each

condition may range from $85,000 to $115,000, depending on the number

of conditions under surveillance, the scope of the surveillance

program, the size of the State, and the stage of development of the

current State program. CDC/NIOSH funding priority is not applicable.

2. Sensor Field-Testing #2--We intend to fund a minimum of five

proposals in this category, including at least one award for work-

related burns, two for occupational asthma, and two for silicosis.

Between $500,000 and $1,200,000 is available to fund proposals. The

average award is expected to be $100,000; individual awards for each

condition may range from $85,000 to $115,000 for this category. CDC/

NIOSH funding priority is applicable. See ``Funding Priorities.''

C. Requests for Supplemental EPA Funds

Approximately $200,000 per year will be available for up to six

States successfully competing for SENSOR Field-Testing #1 (pesticide

surveillance) awards. Supplemental awards will be considered for each

of the six proposals for the surveillance of acute occupational

pesticide illness case reports, focusing on pesticide incidents

involving re-entry to pesticide treated areas, pesticide drift from

treated areas, pesticide drift from treated areas into adjacent or

nearby fields, and incidents associated with mixing, loading, and

application of pesticides. Individual awards may range from $30,000 to

$100,000. CDC/NIOSH funding priority is applicable. See ``Funding

Priorities.''

Use of Funds

Restrictions on Lobbying

Applicants should be aware of restrictions on the use of HHS funds

for lobbying of Federal or State legislative bodies. Under the

provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352 (which has been in effect since December

23, 1989), recipients (and their subtier contractors) are prohibited

from using appropriated Federal funds (other than profits from a

Federal contract) for lobbying Congress or any Federal agency in

connection with the award of a particular contract, grant, cooperative

agreement, or loan. This includes grants/cooperative agreements that,

in whole or in part, involve conferences for which Federal funds cannot

be used directly or indirectly to encourage participants to lobby or to

instruct participants on how to lobby.

In addition, the FY 1997 HHS Appropriations Act, which became

effective October 1, 1996, expressly prohibits the use of 1997

appropriated funds for indirect or ``grass roots'' lobbying efforts

that are designed to support or defeat legislation pending before State

legislatures. This new law, section 503 of Public Law 104-208, provides

as follows:

Sec. 503(a) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act

shall be used, other than for normal and recognized executive-

legislative relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, for

the preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet,

publication, radio, television, or video presentation designed to

support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress, * * *

except in presentation to the Congress or any State legislative body

itself.

(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be

used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or contract

recipient, or agent acting for such recipient, related to any

activity designed to influence legislation or appropriations pending

before the Congress or any State legislature.

Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, as enacted by the Omnibus

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Division A, Title I, section

101(e), Public Law 104-208 (September 30, 1996).

Background and Definitions

In 1987, NIOSH announced the availability of funds for a 5-year

program entitled SENSOR in State and territorial health departments.

The purpose of the 5-year program was to pilot case-based surveillance

and follow-back activities for selected occupational health conditions,

with the ultimate goal of preventing occupational disease and injury.

The original SENSOR model involved case ascertainment through

reporting by sentinel physicians. Cases were reported to a State health

department, which obtained additional information for each case,

analyzed the aggregate reports, and disseminated the analyzed data. The

health department, often in collaboration with other State agencies

(such as State departments of labor or State OSHA programs), conducted

prevention-oriented follow-up activities involving follow-back to the

reported case, co-workers of the reported case, and the workplace of

the reported case. Thus the prevention-oriented intervention primarily

involved a specific workplace. In addition, information on the

aggregate case reports and educational material concerning the target

condition were disseminated to the medical community.

During the period 1987-1992, 10 States received SENSOR funding for

experimental case-based occupational health and safety surveillance

activities. The target conditions have included elevated blood lead,

carpal tunnel syndrome, pesticide poisoning, occupational lung diseases

(silicosis, occupational asthma and hypersensitivity pneumonitis,

pneumoconiosis), and work-related burns.

In the course of SENSOR's past ten years, the original model has

evolved. Case ascertainment methods, other than or in addition to

physician reporting--such as reporting by hospitals and laboratories,

hospital discharge data, and death certificates--have been demonstrated

to be useful and feasible. Outreach and intervention strategies other

than, or in addition to intervention at a particular worksite--such as

hazard alerts, large-scale education efforts, and the use of hazard

surveillance to target groups of workplaces analogous to those

identified through cases--have been demonstrated to be feasible and

effective. It has become clear that no single follow-up or intervention

model for workplace prevention is appropriate for all target conditions

or for all State health departments.

The objective of the SENSOR cooperative agreements program is to

build upon the States' experience of the past 10 years by continued

support for two types of surveillance activities:

[[Page 33084]]

A. SENSOR Experimentation: The purpose of this experimentation

effort is to support the initial design of State-based surveillance

systems. Experimental programs may include target conditions and/or

surveillance methodologies not currently funded by SENSOR, as well as

current SENSOR experiments not deemed ready for inclusion in the field-

testing category. NIOSH currently supports nine developmental programs

for carbon monoxide poisoning, carpal tunnel syndrome, childhood

injuries, noise-induced hearing loss, amputations, cadmium

overexposure, pesticide health effects, occupational tuberculosis, and

dermatitis. Experimental programs should utilize case ascertainment

methods appropriate to the target condition, and as applicable should

link surveillance activities to an appropriate follow-up or

intervention activity. The ability of the experimental surveillance

program to yield representative or generalizable data useful for

estimating incidence or prevalence rates for the target condition is

but one factor that should be considered in the experimental design.

All follow-up or intervention activities should have the broad

objective of preventing occupational disease and injury. The

appropriate follow-up or intervention for any given experimental

program will depend on the target condition, the available personnel

and resources, and the unique characteristics of the State.

B. SENSOR Field-Testing: The purpose of this effort is to field-

test feasible and effective surveillance approaches subsequent to

development under SENSOR experimental programs. Surveillance strategies

currently ready for field-testing are:

1. Hospital reporting of work-related burns;

2. Surveillance of acute occupational pesticide illness;

3. Silicosis surveillance utilizing each of three sources of case

ascertainment: Physician reporting, hospital discharge data, and death

certificates. Workers' compensation records should also be utilized if

available; and

4. Physician reporting of occupational asthma.

Purpose

The underlying goal of SENSOR is the prevention of occupational

disease and injury. As one of the major CDC/NIOSH surveillance

programs, SENSOR promotes the more general goals for surveillance that

include:

A. Identifying new, or previously unrecognized occupational

diseases, injuries, and hazards;

B. Identifying ``sentinel'' diseases, injuries, or hazards, the

occurrence of which represent a failure of prevention;

C. Determining the magnitude and distribution of occupational

diseases, injuries, and hazards;

D. Tracking trends in the magnitude and distribution of

occupational diseases, injuries, and hazards;

E. Effectively targeting occupations, industries, and workplaces

for consultative services or inspections; and

F. Disseminating information to aid the public and government in

decision-making.

The specific objectives of these cooperative agreements are:

A. To support the development, implementation, and evaluation of

experimental State-based surveillance strategies utilizing current

SENSOR target conditions (see Experimental and Field Testing conditions

noted above) and/or new or as-yet-unevaluated methodologies (SENSOR

Experimentation);

B. To support the field-testing of State-based surveillance

strategies;

C. To support the implementation of occupational health

surveillance activities in as many States and territories as possible;

D. To encourage ongoing evaluation of NIOSH-supported State-based

surveillance activities;

E. To support the development and evaluation of information

dissemination and intervention strategies that result in the prevention

of occupational disease and injury;

F. To explore the utility of case-based surveillance systems in

providing estimates of incidence and/or prevalence rates of selected

occupational disorders;

G. To enhance the role of State and territorial health departments

in surveillance and prevention of occupationally-related morbidity and

mortality; and

H. To foster cooperation with NIOSH surveillance programs and

between and among State and territorial health departments and other

State governmental agencies with interest and expertise relevant to

occupational health surveillance, intervention, and prevention

activities; and

I. Support the EPA's evaluation of the Worker Protection Standard

through collaborative CDC/NIOSH and State efforts in developing

information from acute occupational pesticide illness investigations

and case reports.

Program Requirements

For both types of SENSOR surveillance activities, cooperative

agreement recipients will be responsible for the activities under

A.(Recipient Activities), and CDC/NIOSH will be responsible for the

activities listed under B. (CDC/NIOSH Activities).

A. Recipient Activities

1. Develop in collaboration with NIOSH a surveillance plan for the

target occupationally-related condition(s) which includes:

a. Delineating a case definition for each target surveillance

condition;

b. Developing case ascertainment systems appropriate for the target

surveillance condition(s) and available resources. These may include:

(1) Direct physician, laboratory, or hospital reports of disease

and injury;

(2) Hospital discharge data;

(3) Death certificates;

(4) Workers' compensation data;

(5) State or Federal disability data;

(6) Poison control center reports;

(7) Other.

c. Gathering additional data as necessary to adequately

characterize the reported cases. Sources of this additional data may

include:

(1) Reporting physician, hospital, or laboratory;

(2) Reported individual or family member;

(3) Workplace of reported individual;

(4) Co-workers of reported individual;

(5) Other.

d. Establishing a case and data management system;

e. Developing case follow-up and intervention methods aimed toward

immediate and/or long-term prevention of the condition(s) under

surveillance, such as:

(1) Hazard alerts, or other publications with wide distribution to

relevant unions, trade organizations, media, public health agencies,

and other groups with responsibilities for or interest in occupational

safety and health;

(2) Educational efforts aimed toward physicians, other health care

professionals, individual or groups of workers, individual workplaces,

employer and trade organizations;

(3) Workplace walk-through visits, with recommendations regarding

hazard abatement;

(4) Screening of co-workers of affected individuals;

(5) Referral to regulatory agencies;

(6) Coordinating with NIOSH in conducting in-depth investigations

or development of control technology.

Research investigations, such as detailed case-control, cohort, or

cross-sectional medical studies, while important for prevention

efforts, should be funded through mechanisms other than the SENSOR

cooperative agreements.

[[Page 33085]]

f. Timely data analysis to ascertain trends and patterns of public

health importance and provide guidance for intervention efforts; and;

g. Developing means of dissemination of surveillance information

that will contribute to occupational disease and injury prevention.

This includes (but is not limited to) sharing material developed under

this cooperative agreement with other States through NIOSH and/or other

NIOSH surveillance partners, and preparation for publication of one

report per year for each target condition.

2. Ensure that surveillance protocols provide confidentiality and

job protection for reported individuals;

3. Provide information necessary for evaluating the usefulness and

efficacy of the surveillance and intervention efforts;

4. Develop a timetable for development and implementation of the

proposed surveillance activity; and

5. Periodically disseminate important or unusual case reports, and

generally promote the periodic summarization and analysis of SENSOR

reports;

6. In collaboration with NIOSH, work to standardize protocols, data

management systems, questionnaires, and other surveillance-related

material with other States conducting surveillance for the same target

condition.

7. Within States with large numbers of farm workers, particularly

those working on farms with row crops, fruits and vegetables, improve

the nation's understanding of the incidence of pesticide related

illness. Emphasis will be placed on those follow-up activities to case

reports, focusing on incidents involving re-entry to pesticide treated

areas, pesticide drift from treated areas into adjacent or nearby

fields, and incidents associated with the mixing, loading, and

application of pesticides.

B. CDC/NIOSH Activities

1. Provide guidance and technical assistance in all phases of

development, implementation, analysis, and evaluation of case

ascertainment, follow-up, and intervention activities;

2. Provide technical assistance in identifying the most appropriate

target surveillance conditions and the most effective surveillance

strategies;

3. Provide technical assistance for in-depth investigations and

development of control technology;

4. Provide periodic summaries and analyses of aggregate

surveillance data from SENSOR States;

5. Support or otherwise maintain a central clearinghouse of

surveillance-related materials for use by the States, and otherwise

partner with States to assure the effective use and dissemination of

State surveillance work products;

6. Facilitate communication and coordination among the States with

regard to data collection and analysis, information development and

dissemination, intervention strategies, and evaluation of surveillance

activities;

7. Convene an annual national meeting of SENSOR States, as well as

periodic meetings of States with similar target surveillance

conditions;

8. Provide editorial assistance in preparation of important or

unusual case reports for publication in the MMWR or other appropriate

publications.

Technical Reporting Requirements

Annual and periodic progress reports are required. Schedules for

the periodic reports, not more frequently than semi-annual, will be

established at the time of the award. An original and two copies of a

progress report and financial status report are required no later than

90 days after the end of each budget period. Final financial and

performance reports are required no later than 90 days after the end of

the project period. All reports are to be submitted to the Grants

Management Branch, CDC.

Semi-annual progress report should include:

A. A brief program description.

B. A listing of program goals and objectives accompanied by a

comparison of the actual accomplishments related to the goals and

objectives established for the period.

C. If established goals and objectives to be accomplished were

delayed, describe both the reason for the deviation and anticipated

corrective action or deletion of the activity from the project.

D. Other pertinent information, including the status of

completeness, timeliness and quality of data.

Application Content

Separate applications must be submitted for each of the two SENSOR

categories described above. Within each application, those applying for

more than one target condition should address each target condition

separately.

The entire application, including appendices, should not exceed 100

pages and the Proposal Narrative section contained therein should not

exceed 25 pages. Pages should be clearly numbered and a complete index

to the application and any appendices included. The original and each

copy of the application must be submitted unstapled and unbound. All

materials must be typewritten, double-spaced, with unreduced type (font

size 12 point) on 8\1/2\'' by 11'' paper, with at least 1'' margins,

headers, and footers, and printed on one side only. Do not include any

spiral or bound materials or pamphlets.

Completed budget forms should be placed at the beginning of the

application with the rest of the form 5161-1. The applicant should

provide a detailed budget, with accompanying justification of all

operating expenses, that is consistent with the stated objectives and

planned activities of the project. CDC may not approve or fund all

proposed activities. Applicants should be precise about the program

purpose of each budget item. For contracts described within the

application budget, applicants should name the contractor, if known,

describe the services to be performed; and provide an itemized

breakdown and justification for the estimated costs of the contract;

the kinds of organizations or parties to be selected; the period of

performance; and the method of selection. Place budget narrative pages

showing, in detail, how funds in each object class will be spent,

directly behind form 424A. Do not put these pages in the body of the

application.

The applicant should provide a detailed description of first-year

activities and briefly describe future-years objectives and activities.

A. Title Page

The heading should include the title of grant program, project

title, organization, name and address, project director's name, address

and telephone number.

B. Abstract

A one page, singled-spaced, typed abstract must be submitted with

the application. The heading should include the title of grant program,

project title, organization, name and address, project director and

telephone number. This abstract should include a work plan identifying

activities to be developed, activities to be completed, and a time-line

for completion of these activities.

C. Proposal Narrative

The narrative of each application must:

1. Briefly state the applicant's understanding of the need or

problem to be addressed and the goal of this cooperative agreement;

2. Document the applicant's ability to provide staff, knowledge,

and other

[[Page 33086]]

resources required to perform the responsibilities in this project, and

describe the approach to be used in carrying out those

responsibilities;

3. Describe clearly the objectives of the project, the steps to be

taken in planning and implementing this project, and the respective

responsibilities of the applicant and any other entities for carrying

out those steps;

4. Discuss how this project will contribute to the prevention of

occupational disease and injury;

5. Provide a proposed schedule and timeline for accomplishing each

of the activities to be carried out in this project, and a method for

evaluating the accomplishments;

6. Describe the names, qualifications, and time commitments of the

professional staff to be assigned to this project; the support staff

available for performance of this project; and the facilities, space,

and equipment available for performance of this project. This should

include a description of the organizational structure and a mission

statement;

7. Specify a proposed plan for administering this project, and

provide the name, qualifications, and time commitments of the Program

Director who will be responsible for its technical development and

overall management;

8. Provide a detailed budget which indicates: (1) Anticipated costs

for personnel, travel, communications, postage, equipment, supplies,

etc., and (2) all sources of funds to meet those needs. Funding for the

program director to attend one annual SENSOR meeting and one annual

meeting for each target condition at a NIOSH facility (in Cincinnati,

Ohio, or Morgantown, W. Virginia) should be included in the proposed

budget;

9. Copies of all pertinent regulations and/or legislation,

including physician, laboratory, or hospital reporting requirements;

10. For applicants seeking support for surveillance of acute

occupational pesticide illnesses, a separate part of the application

should be devoted to a proposal for supplemental funds to conduct

follow-up investigations or case studies on case reports, focusing on

incidents involving re-entry to pesticide treated areas, pesticide

drift from treated areas into adjacent or nearby fields, and incidents

associated with the mixing, loading, and application of pesticides.

Proposals will be rated according to the criteria noted under

Evaluation Criteria, Sensor Field-Testing, paragraph F, Scoring

Requests for Supplemental EPA Funds. A separate supplemental budget

should accompany the application. It should be understood that the

rating and ranking for support for surveillance of acute occupational

pesticide illness is independent of an application's competitiveness

for supplemental support;

11. Human Subjects: State whether or not humans are subjects in

this proposal. (See Human Subjects in the Evaluation Criteria and Other

Requirements sections.)

Evaluation Criteria

Each target condition within each application will be evaluated,

scored and ranked separately according to the following criteria:

SENSOR Experimentation (100 Total Points)

A. Technical Merit (65 Total Points)

1. Relevance of the proposal to the objectives outlined in the

Program Announcement (10 points);

2. Importance of the proposed surveillance activity in reducing the

risk of a specific occupational health or safety condition. Importance

should be discussed relative to the applicant's State and the nation.

Remarks should include reference to measures of the estimated magnitude

of the disease, injury, or condition subject to surveillance, as well

as a description of the potential population-at-risk (15 points);

3. Appropriate selection and/or design for the surveillance of the

target condition(s), case definitions, case identification methods,

data analysis and information dissemination, case follow-up, and

intervention activities (20 points);

4. Provision for maintaining confidentiality of individual case

reports and sensitivity to protecting the employment status of reported

cases (5 points);

5. Capacity to provide case reports, data, and other information

that promotes the goals of surveillance generally, and the evaluation

of this surveillance activity for inclusion under SENSOR Field Testing

(10 points);

6. Adequacy of the proposed schedule and personnel for

accomplishing the proposed activities (5 points).

B. Background, Experience, and Capability (25 Total Points)

1. Applicant's previous accomplishments in the design,

implementation, and evaluation of occupational health surveillance

activities, including SENSOR (10 points);

2. Training, experience, and competence of the proposed Project

Director and staff in the design, implementation, and evaluation of

occupational health surveillance activities (10 points);

3. Availability of sufficient support staff to carry out this

project (5 points).

C. State Commitment (10 Total Points)

The ability of the applicant to commit:

1. Additional funds (5 points); and/or

2. Staff time to the proposed program (5 points).

D. Human Subjects (Not Scored)

Whether or not exempt from the DHHS regulations, are procedures

adequate for the protection of human subjects? Recommendations on the

adequacy of protections include: (1) Protections appear adequate, and

there are no comments to make or concerns to raise, (2) protections

appear adequate, but there are comments regarding the protocol, (3)

protections appear inadequate and the Objective Review Group has

concerns related to human subjects; or (4) disapproval of the

application is recommended because the research risks are sufficiently

serious and protection against the risks are inadequate as to make the

entire application unacceptable.

E. Budget Justification and Adequacy of Facilities (Not Scored)

The proposed budget will be evaluated on the basis of its

reasonableness, concise and clear justification, and consistency with

the intended use of cooperative agreement funds. The application will

also be reviewed as to the adequacy of existing and proposed facilities

and resources for conducting project activities.

SENSOR Field-Testing (100 Total Points)

Applications for field-testing of surveillance strategies for work-

related burns, silicosis, acute occupational pesticide illness, and

occupational asthma will be reviewed and evaluated according to the

following criteria:

A. Technical Merit (65 Total Points)

1. Relevance of the proposal to the objectives outlined in the

Program Announcement (10 points);

2. Importance of field-testing the proposed surveillance activity

in the applicant's State. Importance should be discussed relative to

the applicant's State and the nation. Remarks should include reference

to measures of the estimated magnitude of the disease, injury, or

condition subject to surveillance, as well as a description of the

potential population-at-risk (10 points);

[[Page 33087]]

3. Appropriate use and/or adaptation of the SENSOR surveillance

guidelines for the selected target condition(s) (15 points). (To obtain

guidelines, see below under Where to Obtain Additional Information);

4. Provision for maintaining confidentiality of individual case

reports and sensitivity to protecting the employment status of reported

cases (5 points);

5. Capacity to provide case reports, data, and other information

that promotes the goals of surveillance generally, and the evaluation

of this surveillance activity for inclusion under SENSOR Field Testing

(10 points);

6. Feasibility of providing information needed for the evaluation

of this project (5 points);

7. Adequacy of the proposed schedule and personnel for

accomplishing the proposed activities (10 points).

B. Background, Experience, and Capability (25 Total Points)

1. Applicant's previous involvement in the design, implementation,

and evaluation of public health surveillance and epidemiology

activities (10 points);

2. Training, experience, and competence of the proposed project

director and staff in the design, implementation, and evaluation of

public health surveillance and epidemiology activities (10 points);

3. Availability of sufficient support staff to carry out this

project (5 points).

C. State Commitment (10 Total Points)

1. State agency commitment to development of occupational health

surveillance activities (5 points);

2. The willingness of the applicant to commit additional funds and/

or staff time (5 points).