82 FR 17430 - Supplemental Evidence and Data Request on Lower Limb Prosthesis
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 68 (April 11, 2017)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 68 (April 11, 2017)
| Page Range | 17430-17433 | |
| FR Document | 2017-07158 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 11, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 17430-17433] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-07158] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Supplemental Evidence and Data Request on Lower Limb Prosthesis AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS. ACTION: Request for supplemental evidence and data submissions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of Lower Limb Prosthesis, which is currently being conducted by the AHRQ's Evidence- based Practice Centers Program. Access to published and unpublished pertinent scientific information will improve the quality of this review. DATES: Submission Deadline on or before May 11, 2017. ADDRESSES: Email submissions: src.org">[email protected]src.org. Print submissions: Mailing Address: Portland VA Research Foundation, Scientific Resource Center, ATTN: Scientific Information Packet Coordinator, P.O. Box 69539, Portland, OR 97239. Shipping Address (FedEx, UPS, etc.): Portland VA Research Foundation, Scientific Resource Center, ATTN: Scientific Information Packet Coordinator, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Mail Code: R&D 71, Portland, OR 97239. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 51723 or Email: src.org">[email protected]src.org. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for Lower Limb Prosthesis (LLP). AHRQ is conducting this systematic review pursuant to Section 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a). The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (e.g., details of studies conducted). We are looking for studies that report on Lower Limb Prosthesis, including those that describe adverse events. The entire research protocol, including the key questions, is also available online at: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productID=2451 This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on Lower Limb Prosthesis helpful: [ssquf] A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please indicate whether results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov along with the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number. [ssquf] For completed studies that do not have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, please provide a summary, including the following elements: study number, study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, baseline characteristics, number of patients screened/eligible/enrolled/lost to follow-up/ withdrawn/analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and safety results. [ssquf] A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes. [ssquf] Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file. Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. The contents of all submissions will be made available to the public upon request. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter. The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at: https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/join-the-email-list1/. The systematic review will answer the following questions. This information is provided as background. AHRQ is not requesting that the public provide answers to these questions. The Key Questions Key Question 1 What assessment techniques used to measure functional ability of adults with major lower limb amputation have been evaluated in the published literature? I. What are the measurement properties of these techniques, including: Reliability, validity, responsiveness, minimal detectable change, and minimal important difference? II. What are the characteristics of the participants in studies evaluating measurement properties of assessment techniques? Key Question 2 What prediction tools used to predict functional outcomes in adults with major lower limb amputation have been evaluated in the published literature? I. What are their characteristics, including technical quality (reliability, validity, responsiveness), minimal detectable change, and minimal important difference? II. What are the characteristics of the participants in these studies? Key Question 3 What functional outcome measurement tools used to assess adults who use a lower limb prosthesis (LLP) have been evaluated in the published literature? I. What are their characteristics, including technical quality (reliability, [[Page 17431]] validity, responsiveness), minimal detectable change, and minimal important difference? II. What are the characteristics of the participants in these studies? Key Question 4 In adults who use an LLP, how do the relative effects on ambulatory, functional, and patient-centered outcomes of different prosthetic components or levels of components/prostheses vary based on study participant characteristics? Prosthetic components include: Foot/ankle; knee; socket; liner; suspension; pylon; other. Study participant characteristics of interest include: K level; level of amputation; etiology of amputation; prior function (prior to new or replacement LLP); current function; expected potential function/ level of activity and activities (e.g., athletics, uneven surface walking); time since amputation; initial vs. subsequent limb LLP; unilateral vs bilateral LLP; time since last assessment; age; comorbidities that may affect use of LLP (e.g., congestive heart failure, vascular dysfunction, skin ulceration/damage, visual dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy, local cancer treatment, other lower limb disease); type, setting, and description of rehabilitation, physical therapy, training; peri-amputation surgery information, including surgical details, inpatient rehabilitation details, wound status; residence setting; use of assistive devices; comfort of existing prosthesis (for patients receiving replacement LLP); psychosocial characteristics; family (etc.) support system; training and acclimation with LLP. I. What assessment techniques that have been evaluated for measurement properties were used in these studies? A. How do the characteristics of the participants in eligible studies that used these specific assessment techniques compare to the characteristics of the participants in the studies that evaluated the assessment techniques (as per Key Question 1II)? B. What is the association between these pre-prescription assessment techniques and validated outcomes with the LLP in these studies? II. What prediction tools that have been evaluated for measurement properties were used in these studies? A. How do the characteristics of the participants in eligible studies that used these specific prediction tools compare to the characteristics of the participants in the studies that evaluated the prediction tools (as per Key Question 2II)? B. What is the association between pre-prescription assessment techniques and validated outcomes with the LLP in these studies? III. What functional outcomes that have been for measurement properties were used in these studies? A. How do the characteristics of the participants in eligible studies that used these specific functional outcomes compare to the characteristics of the participants in the studies that evaluated the outcomes (as per Key Question 3II)? Key Question 5 How do the patients' pre-prescription expectations of ambulation align with their functional outcomes? I. How does the level of agreement vary based on the characteristics listed in Key Question 4, including level of componentry incorporated into their LLP? Key Question 6 What is the level of patient satisfaction with the process of accessing a LLP (including experiences with both providers and payers)? I. How does the level of patient satisfaction vary based on the characteristics listed in Key Question 4, including level of componentry incorporated into their LLP? Key Question 7 At 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years after receipt of a LLP, (accounting for intervening mortality, subsequent surgeries or injuries) what percentage of individuals maintain bipedal ambulation; use their prostheses only for transfers; are housebound vs. ambulating in community; have abandoned their prostheses; have major problems with prosthesis. I. How do these percentages vary based on the following characteristics? A. Patient residence and setting i. Living situation (e.g., homebound, institutionalized, community ambulation) ii. Setting for rehabilitation, physical therapy, or training (e.g., in-home or at facility) B. Patient characteristics i. Age ii. Level of amputation iii. Number of lower limbs amputated (unilateral vs. bilateral) iv. Prior level of function (prior to onset of extremity disability) v. Current level of function vi. Etiology of amputation vii. Time since amputation viii. Comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, CVD, PVD) ix. Operative treatment x. Use of assistive device xi. Cosmesis of the prosthesis xii. Comfort of the prosthesis xiii. Other C. Prosthetic componentry II. What were the reasons for suboptimal use of the prosthetic device? PICOTS (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timing, Setting) Pertinent to all Key Questions: Population I. Adults with lower limb amputation who are being evaluated for or already have an LLP A. Lower limb amputees who require or have a lower limb prosthesis II. Exclude if study includes only participants with battle-related trauma III. Exclude if study includes only congenital amputations (and not otherwise Medicare eligible) IV. Exclude if study includes only children <=18 years old A. If a study has a mixed population (related to battle trauma, congenital amputations, or pediatrics) and they report subgroup data based on these factors, include analyses of relevant populations (exclude substudy data on excluded populations). If study reports only combined data (e.g., adults and children), include overall study, but note issue related to population. V. Exclude if study conducted in low income or low resource country Intervention I. Custom fabricated lower limb prosthesis II. Specific prosthetic component, including foot/ankle, knee, socket, liner, pylon and suspension, or components with specific characteristics (e.g., shock absorbing, torque, multiaxial, computer assisted, powered, flexion, microprocessor) III. New or existing definitive or replacement prosthetics IV. Exclude initial or preparatory prosthetics (used temporarily prior to definitive or replacement prostheses immediately after amputation surgery) V. Exclude studies comparing only rehabilitation, physical therapy, or training techniques or regimens VI. Exclude evaluation of orthotics and of implanted devices Comparators, Outcomes I. Variable by Key Question Study Design I. Published, peer reviewed study [[Page 17432]] II. Any language (that can be read by research team or machine translated) III. No publication or study date restriction IV. Exclude case reports Setting I. Patients homebound, institutionalized, community ambulation, any residence II. Clinical or laboratory setting (for evaluation of specific ambulatory function outcomes) III. Rehabilitation setting (e.g., physical therapy clinic, in-home) IV. Exclude exclusively post-acute (post-surgical) setting or inpatient rehabilitation (immediately post-amputation) Key Question-Specific Criteria Key Questions 1-3 Population I. As per criteria pertinent to all Key Questions II. Also allow studies of amputees, whether or not they use LLPs (Key Questions 1 & 2) Predictors/Tools/Tests/etc. (Key Questions 1 & 2) I. Assessment techniques (that are used prior to prescription) (Key Question 1) A. Tests, scales, questionnaires that assess current functional or health status B. Include patient history and physical examination C. Measures of physical function and functional capacity (e.g., parallel bar ambulation without LLP) D. Exclude single factors (e.g., time since surgery, fasting blood glucose) II. Predictor tools (used prior to prescription to predict functional outcomes with prosthesis) (Key Question 2) A. Tests, scales, questionnaires B. Exclude single factors (e.g., time since surgery, fasting blood glucose) Outcomes I. Functional, patient centered, or ambulatory outcomes per Key Question 4 Study Design I. Any assessment of validity, reliability, reproducibility, and related characteristics II. Exclude studies of validation of translations of non-English scales, indexes, etc. III. Any study design IV. No minimum sample size (except not case reports) V. No minimum followup time Key Question 4 Population, Intervention I. As per criteria pertinent to all Key Questions Comparators II. LLPs with different components (e.g., feet/ankles, knees, sockets, pylons, liners, suspension), or that differ in other ways Outcomes I. Functional or patient-centered outcomes (measured or related to status in the community) A. Quality of life B. Disability measures C. Activities of daily living D. Mobility measures, including use of prostheses only for transfers E. Self-care F. Pain G. Fatigue post-use (e.g., end of day) H. Daily activity I. Time LLP worn per day J. Falls K. Satisfaction with LLP L. Exclude (simple) preference II. Ambulatory functional outcomes A. Gait speed, step count, walk distance B. Uneven or wet surface, low lighting walking C. Ramps and incline traversing D. Step/stair climbing function E. Ambulatory function measured in the community setting (e.g., self-report or activity monitors) F. Achievement of bipedal ambulation G. Other patient-centered ambulatory function measures H. Exclude biomechanical measures III. Adverse effects of LLP A. Skin ulcers/infections, (injuries from) falls due to mechanical failure, etc. B. Other problems with prosthesis Study Design I. Direct comparison between any two components II. Must include an analysis or reporting of differences in relative effect between components by a patient characteristic of interest (see text of Key Question 4) or sufficient participant-level data to make such an analysis III. No minimum sample size (other than no case reports) IV. No minimum followup time Key Question 5 Population I. As per criteria pertinent to all Key Questions Predictor I. Any measure of preprescription expectation of ambulation Outcome I. Functional, patient-centered, and ambulatory outcomes per Key Question 4 (Not adverse effects) Study Design I. Any study design, including qualitative studies II. No minimum sample size (other than no case reports) III. No minimum followup time Key Question 6 Population I. As per criteria pertinent to all Key Questions Intervention I. Accessing (or attempting to access) a LLP Outcomes I. Satisfaction with the process of accessing a LLP Study Design I. Any study design, including qualitative studies II. No minimum sample size (other than no case reports) III. No minimum followup time Key Question 7 Population I. As per criteria pertinent to all Key Questions Intervention I. Prescription for a LLP Outcomes I. Maintain bipedal ambulation II. Use of prostheses only for transfers III. Housebound vs. ambulating in community IV. Abandonment of prostheses V. Major problems with prosthesis Study Design I. Either longitudinal with follow up since original lower limb prosthesis prescription or cross-sectional at timepoint after amputation or prescription II. Minimum follow up time A. >=6 month follow up from time of prescription, or B. >=1 year follow up from time of amputation, if no data reported about time since prescription III. Minimum sample size A. If subgroup analyses reported (based on bullet characteristics in text of Key Question 7I), N>=10 per [[Page 17433]] subgroup (thus, N>=20 total) [this number may change depending on available data] B. If no subgroup analyses reported, N>=100 total [this number may change depending on available data] Sharon B. Arnold, Acting Director. [FR Doc. 2017-07158 Filed 4-10-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
![17430 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 11, 2017 / Notices
Study Design SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Your contribution will be very
KQ 1: Randomized and non- Agency for Healthcare Research and beneficial to the EPC Program. The
randomized controlled clinical trials; Quality has commissioned the contents of all submissions will be made
prospective cohort studies with Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) available to the public upon request.
concurrent control groups; systematic Program to complete a review of the Materials submitted must be publicly
reviews; for studies assessing policy or evidence for Lower Limb Prosthesis available or able to be made public.
system-level interventions, we will also (LLP). AHRQ is conducting this Materials that are considered
include pre-post studies with repeated systematic review pursuant to Section confidential; marketing materials; study
outcome measures before and after the 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act, types not included in the review; or
intervention. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a). information on indications not included
KQ 2: Randomized and non- The EPC Program is dedicated to in the review cannot be used by the EPC
randomized controlled clinical trials; identifying as many studies as possible Program. This is a voluntary request for
cohort studies; case-control studies; that are relevant to the questions for information, and all costs for complying
systematic reviews. each of its reviews. In order to do so, we with this request must be borne by the
are supplementing the usual manual submitter.
Sharon B. Arnold, and electronic database searches of the The draft of this review will be posted
Acting Director. literature by requesting information on AHRQ’s EPC Program Web site and
[FR Doc. 2017–07157 Filed 4–10–17; 8:45 am] from the public (e.g., details of studies available for public comment for a
BILLING CODE 4160–90–P conducted). We are looking for studies period of 4 weeks. If you would like to
that report on Lower Limb Prosthesis, be notified when the draft is posted,
including those that describe adverse please sign up for the email list at:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND events. The entire research protocol, https://www.effectivehealthcare.
HUMAN SERVICES including the key questions, is also ahrq.gov/index.cfm/join-the-email-list1/
available online at: https:// .
Agency for Healthcare Research and effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for- The systematic review will answer the
Quality guides-reviews-and-reports/ following questions. This information is
?pageaction=displayproduct&product provided as background. AHRQ is not
Supplemental Evidence and Data requesting that the public provide
ID=2451
Request on Lower Limb Prosthesis answers to these questions.
This is to notify the public that the
AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research EPC Program would find the following The Key Questions
and Quality (AHRQ), HHS. information on Lower Limb Prosthesis
helpful: Key Question 1
ACTION: Request for supplemental
evidence and data submissions. D A list of completed studies that What assessment techniques used to
your organization has sponsored for this measure functional ability of adults
SUMMARY: The Agency for Healthcare indication. In the list, please indicate with major lower limb amputation have
Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking whether results are available on been evaluated in the published
scientific information submissions from ClinicalTrials.gov along with the literature?
the public. Scientific information is ClinicalTrials.gov trial number. I. What are the measurement
being solicited to inform our review of D For completed studies that do not properties of these techniques,
Lower Limb Prosthesis, which is have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, including: Reliability, validity,
currently being conducted by the please provide a summary, including responsiveness, minimal detectable
AHRQ’s Evidence-based Practice the following elements: study number, change, and minimal important
Centers Program. Access to published study period, design, methodology, difference?
and unpublished pertinent scientific indication and diagnosis, proper use II. What are the characteristics of the
information will improve the quality of instructions, inclusion and exclusion participants in studies evaluating
this review. criteria, primary and secondary measurement properties of assessment
DATES: Submission Deadline on or outcomes, baseline characteristics, techniques?
before May 11, 2017. number of patients screened/eligible/ Key Question 2
ADDRESSES: enrolled/lost to follow-up/withdrawn/
What prediction tools used to predict
Email submissions: SEADS@epc- analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and
functional outcomes in adults with
src.org. safety results.
major lower limb amputation have been
Print submissions: D A list of ongoing studies that your
evaluated in the published literature?
Mailing Address: Portland VA organization has sponsored for this I. What are their characteristics,
Research Foundation, Scientific indication. In the list, please provide the including technical quality (reliability,
Resource Center, ATTN: Scientific ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the validity, responsiveness), minimal
Information Packet Coordinator, P.O. trial is not registered, the protocol for detectable change, and minimal
Box 69539, Portland, OR 97239. the study including a study number, the important difference?
Shipping Address (FedEx, UPS, etc.): study period, design, methodology, II. What are the characteristics of the
Portland VA Research Foundation, indication and diagnosis, proper use participants in these studies?
Scientific Resource Center, ATTN: instructions, inclusion and exclusion
Scientific Information Packet criteria, and primary and secondary Key Question 3
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Coordinator, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans outcomes. What functional outcome
Hospital Road, Mail Code: R&D 71, D Description of whether the above measurement tools used to assess adults
Portland, OR 97239. studies constitute ALL Phase II and who use a lower limb prosthesis (LLP)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: above clinical trials sponsored by your have been evaluated in the published
Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503–220– organization for this indication and an literature?
8262 ext. 51723 or Email: SEADS@epc- index outlining the relevant information I. What are their characteristics,
src.org. in each submitted file. including technical quality (reliability,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Apr 10, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_17498/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 11, 2017 / Notices 17433
subgroup (thus, N≥20 total) [this can be found at: https:// Planning Performance Improvement and
number may change depending on www.regulations.gov/ Docket No. CDC– Measurement System Database.
available data] 2016–0067. OMB No. 0915–0384—Extension.
B. If no subgroup analyses reported, Abstract: The purpose of the Rural
Dated: April 6, 2017.
N≥100 total [this number may Health Network Development Planning
Frank Hearl,
change depending on available Program (Network Planning) is to assist
Chief of Staff, National Institute for in the development of an integrated
data] Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for health care network, specifically for
Sharon B. Arnold, Disease Control and Prevention.
entities that do not have a history of
Acting Director. [FR Doc. 2017–07275 Filed 4–10–17; 8:45 am]
formal collaborative efforts. Health care
[FR Doc. 2017–07158 Filed 4–10–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163–19–P networks can be an effective strategy to
BILLING CODE 4160–90–P help smaller rural health care providers
and health care service organizations
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND align resources, achieve economies of
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES scale and efficiency, and address
HUMAN SERVICES challenges more effectively as a group
Health Resources and Services
Administration than as single providers. This program
Centers for Disease Control and promotes the planning and development
Prevention of healthcare networks in order to: (1)
Agency Information Collection
[CDC–2016–0067; Docket Number NIOSH Activities: Proposed Collection: Public achieve efficiencies; (2) expand access
270–A] Comment Request Information to, coordinate, and improve the quality
Collection Request Title: Rural Health of essential health care services; and (3)
Issuance of Final Publication Network Development Planning strengthen the rural health care system
Performance Improvement and as a whole.
AGENCY: National Institute for The goals of the Network Planning
Occupational Safety and Health Measurement System Database, OMB
No. 0915–0384-Extension program are centered around
(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease approaches that will aid providers in
Control and Prevention (CDC), AGENCY: Health Resources and Services better serving their communities given
Department of Health and Human Administration (HRSA), Department of the changes taking place in health care,
Services (HHS). Health and Human Services. as providers move from focusing on the
ACTION: Notice of issuance of final ACTION: Notice. volume of services to focusing on the
publication. value of services. The Network Planning
SUMMARY: In compliance with the program brings together key parts of a
SUMMARY: NIOSH announces the requirement for opportunity for public rural health care delivery system,
availability of the following publication: comment on proposed data collection particularly those entities that may not
‘‘NIOSH Center for Motor Vehicle projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act have collaborated in the past under a
Safety: Results from 2016 Midcourse of 1995, HRSA announces plans to formal relationship, to establish and
Review’’ [DHHS (NIOSH) Publication submit an Information Collection improve local capacity and coordination
Number 2017–139]. Request (ICR), described below, to the of care. The program supports 1 year of
DATES: The technical report was Office of Management and Budget planning with the primary goal of
published on March 24, 2017. (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to helping networks create a foundation for
ADDRESSES: This document may be OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the their infrastructure and focusing
obtained at the following link: https:// public regarding the burden estimate, member efforts to address important
www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2017-139/. below, or any other aspect of the ICR. regional or local community health
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DATES: Comments on this Information needs.
David Fosbroke, NIOSH Division of Collection Request must be received no Need and Proposed Use of the
Safety Research, Room H–1808, 1095 later than June 12, 2017. Information: Performance measures for
Willowdale Rd., Morgantown, WV the Network Planning program serve the
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to
26505. Telephone: (304) 285–6010 (not purpose of quantifying awardee-level
paperwork@hrsa.gov or mail the HRSA
a toll free number). Email: data that conveys the successes and
Information Collection Clearance
def2@cdc.gov. challenges associated with the grant
Officer, Room 14N39, 5600 Fishers
award. The approved measures
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
encompass the following principal topic
15, 2016, NIOSH published a notice of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To areas: network infrastructure, network
public web meeting and request for request more information on the collaboration, sustainability, and
comments on the ‘‘NIOSH Center for proposed project or to obtain a copy of network assessment.
Motor Vehicle Safety: Midcourse the data collection plans and draft Likely Respondents: The respondents
Review of Strategic Plan’’ in the Federal instruments, email paperwork@hrsa.gov for these measures are Network
Register [81 FR 54094]. The purpose of or call the HRSA Information Collection Planning program award recipients.
this midcourse review was to seek Clearance Officer at (301) 443–1984. Burden Statement: Burden in this
external input via public comments and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When context means the time expended by
invited stakeholder reviews to shape submitting comments or requesting persons to generate, maintain, retain,
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
priorities for the NIOSH Center for information, please include the disclose, or provide the information
Motor Vehicle Safety for the next 2 information request collection title for requested. This includes the time
years and proceeding toward developing reference, in compliance with section needed to review instructions; to
a new 10-year strategic plan. All 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork develop, acquire, install, and utilize
comments received were reviewed and Reduction Act of 1995. technology and systems for the purpose
considered in finalizing the current Information Collection Request Title: of collecting, validating, and verifying
document. Comments for Docket 270–A Rural Health Network Development information, processing and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Apr 10, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_17498/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2017-04-11 00:48:33
Document Modified: 2017-04-11 00:48:33
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Request for supplemental evidence and data submissions. | |
| Dates | Submission Deadline on or before May 11, 2017. | |
| Contact | Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 51723 or Email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 17430 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR