Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations, 18983-18985 [2013-07233]
Download as PDF
18983
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Notices
Need and Proposed Use of the
Information: Addresses barriers to
health for the LB community, and
promotes overall health and wellbeing.
The intervention will incorporate
community-identified weight loss/risk
reduction needs of this population.
Following the completion of the surveys
and interventions, collected data will be
used to develop increased health-related
services and activities for LB women,
web-based tools and materials for LB
women, increased community
recreation resources inclusive of sexual
minority women.
Likely Respondents: Lesbian and bisexual women forty years of age and
older.
Burden Statement: Burden in this
context means the time expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain,
disclose or provide the information
requested. This includes the time
needed to review instructions, to
develop, acquire, install and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose
of collecting, validating and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information, to train
personnel and to be able to respond to
a collection of information, to search
data sources, to complete and review
the collection of information, and to
transmit or otherwise disclose the
information. The total annual burden
hours estimated for this ICR are
summarized in the table below.
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN—HOURS
Number of respondents
Number of responses per
respondent
Average burden hours per
response
Screening Tool .................................................................................................
Informed Consent Form ...................................................................................
Baseline Survey ...............................................................................................
Baseline Comparison Survey ..........................................................................
9 Month Follow-up Survey ...............................................................................
9- Month Follow-Up Comparison Survey ........................................................
End-of-Program Focus Group .........................................................................
300
256
128
128
128
128
128
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5/60
5/60
5/60
5/60
5/60
5/60
1
25
21
11
11
11
11
128
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
218
Forms
OS specifically requests comments on
(1) the necessity and utility of the
proposed information collection for the
proper performance of the agency’s
functions, (2) the accuracy of the
estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected, and (4) the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology to minimize the information
collection burden.
Keith A. Tucker,
Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013–07144 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
proposed projects or to obtain a copy of
the data collection plans and
instruments, call 404–639–7570 or send
comments to Ron Otten, 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
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
Proposed Data Collections Submitted
for Public Comment and
Recommendations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[60Day-13–13OE]
Cytology Workload Assessment and
Measure—New—Office of Surveillance,
Epidemiology and Laboratory (OSELS),
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC).
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:20 Mar 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
Background and Brief Description
CDC provides technical guidance to
the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) in coordination with the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Total burden
hours
implementation of the Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments
(CLIA). The Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments of 1988
directed the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to establish the
maximum number of cytology slides
that any individual may screen in a 24
hour period; to establish certain quality
assurance standards; to set personnel
standards; and to provide for periodic
proficiency testing of cytotechnologists
and pathologists involved in screening
and interpreting cytological
preparations. The regulations
implementing CLIA, published in the
Federal Register of February 28, 1992,
established that the maximum number
of slides examined by an individual in
each 24 hour period was not to exceed
100 slides and could not be examined
in less than an eight-hour day. The
regulation further established that the
technical supervisor is required to
evaluate the performance of
cytotechnologists at least every six
months and determine their individual
maximum daily workload limit. CDC
requests OMB approval to collect
information on cytology workload
practice assessment through a survey on
workflow and performance practices of
cytotechnologists. Clearance is being
requested for one year.
In 1992, when the regulation was
published, all Pap slides were
conventional ‘‘Pap smears.’’ In a
conventional Pap smear, samples are
smeared directly onto a glass
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18984
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Notices
microscope slide after collection. The
cells are often obscured by blood or the
smear may be too thick and contain
contaminating artifacts. Today, almost
all Pap tests in the U.S. are collected
with a liquid-based method. Instead of
‘‘smearing’’ cervical cells directly onto a
glass microscope slide, the cells are sent
to the laboratory in a liquid preservative
and processed by an automated
processor. This processor disperses a
uniform thickness representative sample
on the slide that is free of obscuring
blood, mucus, and non-diagnostic
debris in a circle that covers less than
one half of the slide.
The Federal Advisory Committee for
CLIA, the Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Advisory Committee
(CLIAC) has discussed cytology
workload on numerous occasions from
1996 until present. The first workgroup
was convened in July 1999 to provide
input on how to determine workload for
liquid-based Pap slides. The workgroup
suggested it would be impossible to
select one number that would be
appropriate for all technology since
automated and semi-automated
screening devices were in development
and approval by FDA might occur in the
near future. In 2003, the CLIA
requirements were amended to require
the manufacturer of a semi-automated
screening device to include a maximum
workload number in the product insert,
rather than set a number in the CLIA
regulations.
The same year the amended
regulations were made final, the first
semi-automated device was approved
which further reduced the area of
screening by the cytotechnologist by
using an automated review microscope
to present the cytotechnologist with a
set number of fields of view (FOV). This
further complicated workload counting
since it should take less time to review
the FOVS than it would take to
manually review the entire circle of the
liquid-based preparation. Currently, two
systems are FDA-approved, the Hologic
ThinPrep® Imaging System and Becton
Dickinson’s Focal PointTM Guided
Screening System. The product insert
for both devices includes a method of
counting slides where slides screened
on the automated review microscope
will be counted as half (0.5) and a full
manual review of the entire circle will
be counted as one (1) slide. CMS and
FDA conducted an investigation into
problems reported by surveyors of
cytology laboratories regarding the two
FDA-approved semi-automated
screening devices. The investigation led
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:20 Mar 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
to a different method for calculation of
workload than the methods reported in
the product inserts. This information
was presented at the September 2010
CLIAC meeting and FDA issued an
alert—How Laboratorians Can Safely
Calculate Workload for FDA-Approved
Semi-Automated Gynecologic Cytology
Screening Devices. In this alert, it stated
laboratories should have a clear
standard operation procedure
documenting the method of workload
counting and explaining how the
Technical Supervisor should establish
workload limits for each individual.
Also, the alert clarified how workload
should be calculated when using either
the Hologic’s ThinPrep® Imaging
System or Becton Dickinson’s Focal
PointTM Guided Screening System:
• All slides with full manual review
(FMR) count as 1 slide (as mandated by
CLIA’s requirements for manual
screening)
• All slides with only field of view
(FOV) review count as 0.5 or 1⁄2 slide
• Then, slides with both FOV and
FMR count as 1.5 or 11⁄2 slides
• Use these values to count workload,
which should not exceed the CLIA
maximum limit of 100 slides in no less
than an 8-hour day.
On August 29, 2011 the American
Society of Cytopathology’s (ASC)
Executive Board approved an ASC task
force recommendation that the average
laboratory cytotechnologist productivity
should not exceed 70 slides and that an
individual’s screening time should not
exceed seven (7) hours in a 24 hour
period. This recommendation was
presented at the ASC 2011 annual
meeting and was endorsed unanimously
by the Cytology Education and
Technology Consortium member
organizations: American Society for
Clinical Pathology, American Society
for Cytotechnology, American Society of
Cytopathology, and Papanicolaou
Society of Cytopathology. The College of
American Pathologists also
acknowledged that the current workload
limits for image assisted screening
devices may be set too high for the
average cytotechnologist, but that
further study was needed to define best
practices for semi-automated
gynecologic workload limits.
The ASC Taskforce recommendation
was presented at the February 2012
CLIAC meeting along with presentations
describing workload studies and use of
the workload limit as a target. The
committee issued a recommendation
that CLIAC supports the use of data
from operational studies, such as those
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
presented to CLIAC, to determine if the
maximum workload limit using semiautomated screening instruments is
appropriate and to discourage the use of
regulatory maximum workload limits as
productivity targets. CLIAC
recommended that standardized criteria
be developed for use in determining
workload limits for each individual
performing screening.
Due to ongoing concerns regarding the
appropriateness of the regulatory 100slide maximum workload limit and lack
of a standardized method for counting
slides using the semi-automated
screening devices, a study is needed to
directly assess actual practice. The
study needs to include a survey of
laboratory practices related to setting
individual workload limits. The survey
will include questions regarding the
maximum workload number of slides
for each cytotechnologist employed in
the cytology laboratory and how the
slides are counted for workload
purposes. Since the technical supervisor
is required by CLIA to reevaluate the
maximum workload number for each
individual every six months and to
determine policies for workflow and
performance practices reporting this
information, it is anticipated that the
survey may be completed in 30 minutes.
The results of this practice assessment
will be used by DLSS/CDC to assist in
the development of protocols for a time
measurement study to determine the
actual time spent screening slides. The
results of this practice assessment and
the time measure study may be used by
HHS agencies responsible for CLIA to
determine appropriate gynecologic
screening workload maximums using
semi-automated devices.
Each laboratory will receive an
advance request to participate in the
survey from a DLSS contractor that has
been selected to collect the survey data
and conduct the time measure study.
Respondents will be from the 1,245
cytology laboratories in the United
States. Since a response to this survey
is voluntary, we would expect an 80%
response rate or approximately 996
laboratories. Responses would be
submitted using an electronic webbased interface or in written format. The
estimated burden per response is thirty
minutes.
CDC expects that information
collection will begin in November 2013
and end February 2014.
There are no costs to respondents
other than their time.
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
18985
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Notices
ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS
No. of
respondents
No. of
responses per
respondent
Avg. burden
per response
(in hrs.)
Total burden
(in hrs.)
Type of respondents
Form name
Cytology laboratories ........................
Cytology Workload Assessment ......
996
1
30/60
498
Total ...........................................
...........................................................
........................
........................
........................
498
Dated: March 21, 2013.
Ron A. Otten,
Director, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office
of the Associate Director for Science, Office
of the Director, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013–07233 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P
Background and Brief Description
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
[60-Day-13–0861]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 Ron Otten, 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
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
A Controlled Evaluation of Expect
Respect Support Groups (ERSG):
Preventing and Interrupting Teen Dating
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:20 Mar 27, 2013
Violence among At-Risk Middle and
High School Students (OMB No. 0920–
0861, Expiration 8/31/2013)—
Extension—National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control (NCIPC),
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC).
Jkt 229001
The purpose of this request is to
obtain Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval to extend the
data collection for A Controlled
Evaluation of Expect Respect Support
Groups (ERSG): Preventing and
Interrupting Teen Dating Violence
among At-Risk Middle and High School
Students (OMB No.0920–0861,
Expiration 8/31/2013). CDC seeks a
three-year extension in order to
continue: 1) evaluating the effectiveness
of Expect Respect Support Groups
(ERSG) in preventing and reducing teen
dating violence and 2) comparing
whether there are increased healthy
conflict resolution skills reported by atrisk male and female middle and high
school students participating in ERSG,
compared to at-risk students in control
schools who do not receive ERSG.
The prevalence and consequences of
teen dating violence make it a public
health concern that requires early and
effective prevention. To date, only three
prevention strategies—Safe Dates, the
Youth Relationships Project, and 4th
R—have demonstrated reductions in
dating violence behaviors in rigorous,
controlled evaluations. In order to
protect young people and build an
evidence-base of effective prevention
strategies, evaluation of additional
programs is needed, including those
programs currently in the field. The
Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG;
provided by SafePlace) program is
currently being implemented in the
Austin Independent School District and
demonstrated promising results in an
uncontrolled program evaluation,
suggesting a controlled evaluation is
warranted to more rigorously examine
program effects.
The extension request to the
controlled evaluation of ERSG, which
began in September 2010, has one
primary aim and two exploratory aims.
The primary aim is to evaluate the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
effectiveness of ERSG to prevent and
reduce teen dating violence and
increase healthy conflict resolution
skills reported by at-risk male and
female middle and high school students
compared to at-risk students in control
schools who do not receive ERSG. The
exploratory aims are: (1) To evaluate
whether or not the effectiveness of
ERSG is enhanced by the presence of a
universal, school-wide prevention
programs, and (2) To examine
moderators and mediators of targeted
and universal teen dating violence
interventions, such as biological sex and
history of abuse at intake. Completion of
this study and examination of the
primary and exploratory aims associated
with it will help to fill a research gap
by adding results to the evidence base
regarding whether ERSG is a promising
program for reducing the prevalence of
teen dating violence and increasing
knowledge of healthy relationship
skills.
The ongoing evaluation employs a
quasi-experimental/non-randomized
design in which a convenience sample
of participants in schools receiving
universal and/or targeted prevention
services are compared to students in
control schools in which no dating
violence prevention services are
available.
Based on the previous two years of
data collection for the ERSG evaluation,
we anticipate that in the Austin
Independent School District, 800
middle and high school students will
undergo an intake assessment, of whom
600 at-risk students (i.e., students who
indicate they have been exposed to
violence in the home, community, or in
dating or peer relationships) will be
eligible for ERSG, of whom 400 will
complete the baseline and completion
assessments. Therefore, we will recruit
1,800 students (300 per year from
intervention schools and 300 per year
from control schools) over three waves
of data collection. Of the 1,800 students
recruited, we anticipate 1200 will have
complete data at the end of the study
period. Control schools have been
selected that have characteristics (e.g.,
risk status, socio-economic status)
similar to the Austin Independent
School District intervention schools.
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18983-18985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07233]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[60Day-13-13OE]
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 Ron Otten, 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 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
Cytology Workload Assessment and Measure--New--Office of
Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory (OSELS), Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC).
Background and Brief Description
CDC provides technical guidance to the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) in coordination with the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for
the implementation of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments
(CLIA). The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 directed
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish the maximum
number of cytology slides that any individual may screen in a 24 hour
period; to establish certain quality assurance standards; to set
personnel standards; and to provide for periodic proficiency testing of
cytotechnologists and pathologists involved in screening and
interpreting cytological preparations. The regulations implementing
CLIA, published in the Federal Register of February 28, 1992,
established that the maximum number of slides examined by an individual
in each 24 hour period was not to exceed 100 slides and could not be
examined in less than an eight-hour day. The regulation further
established that the technical supervisor is required to evaluate the
performance of cytotechnologists at least every six months and
determine their individual maximum daily workload limit. CDC requests
OMB approval to collect information on cytology workload practice
assessment through a survey on workflow and performance practices of
cytotechnologists. Clearance is being requested for one year.
In 1992, when the regulation was published, all Pap slides were
conventional ``Pap smears.'' In a conventional Pap smear, samples are
smeared directly onto a glass
[[Page 18984]]
microscope slide after collection. The cells are often obscured by
blood or the smear may be too thick and contain contaminating
artifacts. Today, almost all Pap tests in the U.S. are collected with a
liquid-based method. Instead of ``smearing'' cervical cells directly
onto a glass microscope slide, the cells are sent to the laboratory in
a liquid preservative and processed by an automated processor. This
processor disperses a uniform thickness representative sample on the
slide that is free of obscuring blood, mucus, and non-diagnostic debris
in a circle that covers less than one half of the slide.
The Federal Advisory Committee for CLIA, the Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC) has discussed cytology workload
on numerous occasions from 1996 until present. The first workgroup was
convened in July 1999 to provide input on how to determine workload for
liquid-based Pap slides. The workgroup suggested it would be impossible
to select one number that would be appropriate for all technology since
automated and semi-automated screening devices were in development and
approval by FDA might occur in the near future. In 2003, the CLIA
requirements were amended to require the manufacturer of a semi-
automated screening device to include a maximum workload number in the
product insert, rather than set a number in the CLIA regulations.
The same year the amended regulations were made final, the first
semi-automated device was approved which further reduced the area of
screening by the cytotechnologist by using an automated review
microscope to present the cytotechnologist with a set number of fields
of view (FOV). This further complicated workload counting since it
should take less time to review the FOVS than it would take to manually
review the entire circle of the liquid-based preparation. Currently,
two systems are FDA-approved, the Hologic ThinPrep[supreg] Imaging
System and Becton Dickinson's Focal PointTM Guided Screening
System. The product insert for both devices includes a method of
counting slides where slides screened on the automated review
microscope will be counted as half (0.5) and a full manual review of
the entire circle will be counted as one (1) slide. CMS and FDA
conducted an investigation into problems reported by surveyors of
cytology laboratories regarding the two FDA-approved semi-automated
screening devices. The investigation led to a different method for
calculation of workload than the methods reported in the product
inserts. This information was presented at the September 2010 CLIAC
meeting and FDA issued an alert--How Laboratorians Can Safely Calculate
Workload for FDA-Approved Semi-Automated Gynecologic Cytology Screening
Devices. In this alert, it stated laboratories should have a clear
standard operation procedure documenting the method of workload
counting and explaining how the Technical Supervisor should establish
workload limits for each individual. Also, the alert clarified how
workload should be calculated when using either the Hologic's
ThinPrep[supreg] Imaging System or Becton Dickinson's Focal
PointTM Guided Screening System:
All slides with full manual review (FMR) count as 1 slide
(as mandated by CLIA's requirements for manual screening)
All slides with only field of view (FOV) review count as
0.5 or \1/2\ slide
Then, slides with both FOV and FMR count as 1.5 or 1\1/2\
slides
Use these values to count workload, which should not
exceed the CLIA maximum limit of 100 slides in no less than an 8-hour
day.
On August 29, 2011 the American Society of Cytopathology's (ASC)
Executive Board approved an ASC task force recommendation that the
average laboratory cytotechnologist productivity should not exceed 70
slides and that an individual's screening time should not exceed seven
(7) hours in a 24 hour period. This recommendation was presented at the
ASC 2011 annual meeting and was endorsed unanimously by the Cytology
Education and Technology Consortium member organizations: American
Society for Clinical Pathology, American Society for Cytotechnology,
American Society of Cytopathology, and Papanicolaou Society of
Cytopathology. The College of American Pathologists also acknowledged
that the current workload limits for image assisted screening devices
may be set too high for the average cytotechnologist, but that further
study was needed to define best practices for semi-automated
gynecologic workload limits.
The ASC Taskforce recommendation was presented at the February 2012
CLIAC meeting along with presentations describing workload studies and
use of the workload limit as a target. The committee issued a
recommendation that CLIAC supports the use of data from operational
studies, such as those presented to CLIAC, to determine if the maximum
workload limit using semi-automated screening instruments is
appropriate and to discourage the use of regulatory maximum workload
limits as productivity targets. CLIAC recommended that standardized
criteria be developed for use in determining workload limits for each
individual performing screening.
Due to ongoing concerns regarding the appropriateness of the
regulatory 100-slide maximum workload limit and lack of a standardized
method for counting slides using the semi-automated screening devices,
a study is needed to directly assess actual practice. The study needs
to include a survey of laboratory practices related to setting
individual workload limits. The survey will include questions regarding
the maximum workload number of slides for each cytotechnologist
employed in the cytology laboratory and how the slides are counted for
workload purposes. Since the technical supervisor is required by CLIA
to reevaluate the maximum workload number for each individual every six
months and to determine policies for workflow and performance practices
reporting this information, it is anticipated that the survey may be
completed in 30 minutes.
The results of this practice assessment will be used by DLSS/CDC
to assist in the development of protocols for a time measurement study
to determine the actual time spent screening slides. The results of
this practice assessment and the time measure study may be used by HHS
agencies responsible for CLIA to determine appropriate gynecologic
screening workload maximums using semi-automated devices.
Each laboratory will receive an advance request to participate in
the survey from a DLSS contractor that has been selected to collect the
survey data and conduct the time measure study. Respondents will be
from the 1,245 cytology laboratories in the United States. Since a
response to this survey is voluntary, we would expect an 80% response
rate or approximately 996 laboratories. Responses would be submitted
using an electronic web-based interface or in written format. The
estimated burden per response is thirty minutes.
CDC expects that information collection will begin in November 2013
and end February 2014.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
[[Page 18985]]
Estimated Annualized Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Avg. burden
Type of respondents Form name No. of responses per per response Total burden
respondents respondent (in hrs.) (in hrs.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cytology laboratories......... Cytology 996 1 30/60 498
Workload
Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... ................ .............. .............. .............. 498
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: March 21, 2013.
Ron A. Otten,
Director, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate
Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013-07233 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P