26258 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices 

that corresponds with ‘‘Information 

Collection 9000–0076, Novation/Change 

of Name Requirements.’’ Follow the 

instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a 

Comment’’ screen. Please include your 

name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘Information Collection 9000–0076, 

Novation/Change of Name 

Requirements’’ on your attached 

document. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. 

Flowers/IC 9000–0076, Novation/

Change of Name Requirements. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite Information Collection 

9000–0076, Novation/Change of Name 

Requirements, in all correspondence 

related to this collection. All comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal and/or business 

confidential information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement 

Analyst, Office of Governmentwide 

Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202–208–4949 

or via email curtis.glover@gsa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

42.1203 and 42.1204 provide 

requirements for contractors to request 

novation/change of name agreements 

and supporting documents when a firm 

performing under Government contracts 

wishes the Government to recognize (1) 

a successor in interest to these contracts, 

or (2) a name change, it must submit 

certain documentation to the 

Government. 

B. Annual Reporting Burden 

Respondents: 1,178. 

Responses per Respondent: 1. 

Annual Responses: 1,178. 

Hours per Response: 2.0. 

Total Burden Hours: 2,356. 

C. Public Comments 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: Whether this collection of 

information is necessary; whether it will 

have practical utility; whether our 

estimate of the public burden of this 

collection of information is accurate, 

and based on valid assumptions and 

methodology; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways in 

which we can minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, through the use of 

appropriate technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: 

Requesters may obtain a copy of the 

information collection documents from 

the General Services Administration, 

Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 

1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 

20405, telephone 202–501–4755. Please 

cite OMB Control No. 9000–0076, 

Novation/Change of Name 

Requirements, in all correspondence. 

Dated: May 4, 2015. 

Edward Loeb, 

Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy 

Division, Office of Governmentwide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11074 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice–MA–2015–02; Docket No. 2015– 

0002, Sequence No. 10] 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); 

Relocation Allowances—Requirement 

To Report Agency Payments for 

Relocation 

AGENCY: Office of Government-Wide 

Policy, General Services Administration 

(GSA). 

ACTION: Notice of a bulletin. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is 

to inform agencies that FTR Bulletin 15– 

04, pertaining to the Requirement to 

Report Agency Payments for Relocation, 

is now available online at www.gsa.gov/ 

ftrbulletin. 

DATES: Effective: May 7, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Rick Miller, Office of Asset and 

Transportation Management (MA), 

Office of Government-wide Policy, GSA, 

at 202–501–3822 or via email at 

rodney.miller@gsa.gov. Please cite FTR 

Bulletin 15–04. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 5 

U.S.C. 5707(c), as implemented in the 

Federal Travel Regulation, Part 300–70, 

Subpart A—Requirement To Report 

Agency Payments for Employee Travel 

and Relocation, and Part 302–1, Subpart 

B—Requirement to Report Agency Data 

for Employee Relocation, the 

Administrator of General Services is 

required to collect data on total agency 

payments for travel, transportation, and 

relocation expenses every year. This 

bulletin provides guidance to agencies 

that spent more than $5 million on 

travel and transportation payments, 

including relocation costs, and the 

requirement procedures to report the 

data to GSA. Federal Travel Regulation 

Bulletin 15–04 and all other FTR 

Bulletins can be found at www.gsa.gov/ 

ftrbulletin. 

Dated: May 1, 2015. 

Giancarlo Brizzi, 

Acting Associate Administrator, Office of 

Government-wide Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–10631 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

intention of the Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approve the proposed 

information collection project: ‘‘Pilot 

Test of the Proposed Hospital Survey on 

Patient Safety Culture Version 2.0.’’ In 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, 

AHRQ invites the public to comment on 

this proposed information collection. 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by July 6, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, 

Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by 

email at doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov. 

Copies of the proposed collection 

plans, data collection instruments, and 

specific details on the estimated burden 

can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports 

Clearance Officer. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports 

Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by 

email at doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Pilot Test of the Proposed Hospital 

Survey on Patient Safety Culture 

Version 2.0 

Proposed Project 

In 2004, AHRQ developed and 

published a measurement tool to assess 

the culture of patient safety in hospitals 

(OMB control no. 0935–0115). The 

Hospital Survey on Patient Safety 

Culture (HSOPS) is a survey of 

providers and staff that can be 

implemented by hospitals to identify 

strengths and areas for patient safety 

culture improvement as well as raise 

awareness about patient safety. When 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices 26259 

conducted routinely, the survey can be 

used to examine trends in patient safety 

culture over time and evaluate the 

cultural impact of patient safety 

initiatives and interventions. The data 

can also be used to make comparisons 

across hospital units. AHRQ also 

produced a survey user’s guide to assist 

hospitals in conducting the survey 

successfully. The guide addresses issues 

such as which providers and staff 

should complete the survey, how to 

select a sample of hospital providers 

and staff, how to administer the 

questionnaire, and how to analyze and 

report on the resulting data. 

Since 2004, thousands of hospitals 

within the U.S. and internationally have 

implemented the survey. In response to 

requests for comparative data from other 

hospitals, AHRQ funded the 

development of a comparative database 

on the survey in 2006 (OMB control no. 

0935–0162). The database is currently 

compiled every two years, using the 

latest data provided by participating 

hospitals (and retaining submitted data 

for no more than 2 years). Reports 

describing the findings from analysis of 

the database are made available on the 

AHRQ Web site to assist hospitals in 

comparing their results. The 2014 

database contains data from 405,281 

hospital provider and staff respondents 

within 653 participating hospitals. The 

2014 User Comparative Database Report 

presents results by hospital 

characteristics (e.g., number of beds, 

teaching status, geographic location) 

and respondent characteristics (e.g., 

position type, work area/unit). 

The survey constructed in 2004 

remains in use today, more than 10 

years after its initial launch. Since the 

launch of HSOPS, AHRQ has funded 

development of patient safety culture 

surveys for other settings. In 2008, 

surveys were published for outpatient 

medical offices (OMB control no. 0935– 

0131) and nursing homes (OMB control 

no. 0935–0132). In 2012, a survey for 

community pharmacies (OMB control 

no. 0935–0183) was released. Surveys 

for each setting built upon the strengths 

of HSOPS but improved and updated 

items where appropriate. 

Users of HSOPS have provided 

feedback over the years suggesting that 

changes to the instrument would be 

valuable and welcomed. The 

comparative database registrants 

provided feedback about potential 

changes in 2013, and telephone 

interviews were conducted with 8 

current survey users and vendors to gain 

an in-depth understanding of their 

thoughts on the current survey and 

possible changes. As a result of this 

feedback, the Hospital Survey on Patient 

Safety Culture Version 2.0 (HSOPS 2.0) 

is being constructed with the following 

8 objectives in mind. 

(1) Shift to a Just Culture framework 

for understanding responses to errors. In 

the original HSOPS, questions around 

responses to errors were negatively 

worded to detect a ‘‘culture of blame’’ 

in organizations. For example, 

respondents evaluated the extent to 

which errors were held against them 

and whether it felt as though the person 

was being written up rather than the 

problem. In contrast, a Just Culture 

framework emphasizes learning from 

mistakes, providing a safe environment 

for reporting errors, and utilizing a 

balanced approach to errors that 

considers both system and individual 

behavioral reasons as causes for errors. 

New items will be constructed in 

HSOPS 2.0 to capture the extent to 

which positive responses to error 

consistent with a Just Culture 

framework are present in an 

organization. For example, respondents 

will be asked to evaluate the extent to 

which the organization tries to 

understand the factors that lead to 

patient safety errors. 

(2) Reduce the number of negatively 

worded items. The original HSOPS has 

negatively worded items. For example, 

respondents are asked whether there are 

‘‘patient safety problems in this unit’’ 

(negatively worded). Using some 

negatively worded items was intended 

to reduce social desirability and 

acquiescence biases and identify 

individuals not giving the survey their 

full attention (e.g., ‘‘straight-lining,’’ or 

providing the same answer for every 

item, regardless of positive or negative 

wording). However, many users have 

indicated that respondents sometimes 

had difficultly correctly interpreting and 

responding to the negatively worded 

items. Therefore, many survey users 

recommended that the number of 

negatively worded items should be 

reduced, but they did not recommend 

removing all of these items as they felt 

a mixture of items helps keep 

respondents engaged. 

(3) Add a ‘‘Does not apply/Don’t 

know’’ response option. Analysis of the 

Comparative Database data found that a 

percentage of respondents selects 

‘‘neither agree nor disagree’’ on many 

items when they really should have 

answered ‘‘Does not apply/Don’t know’’. 

While some portion of respondents will 

always have neutral feelings about a 

statement, in some cases a respondent 

will select a neutral response to an item 

because they do not have experience in 

that area or the item does not apply to 

their position. Addition of a ‘‘does not 

apply/don’t know’’ response option 

should reduce neutral responses to an 

item in cases where the item is not 

relevant for a respondent, providing 

more statistical variability in responses. 

Recognizing these issues, the other 

AHRQ Surveys on Patient Safety 

Culture all have a 5th ‘‘Does not apply/ 

Don’t know’’ response option. 

(4) Reword unclear or difficult-totranslate items. HSOPS was originally 

designed for use in U.S. hospitals, but 

it has since been translated into 

languages other than English. Some 

HSOPS items use idiomatic expressions 

that do not translate well, such as 

‘‘things fall between the cracks’’ and 

‘‘the person is being written up.’’ Other 

items have words that are complex or 

may mean different things to different 

people, such as ‘‘sacrifice’’ and 

‘‘overlook.’’ HSOPS 2.0 uses more 

universal phrases which can be 

accurately translated and have more 

consistent meaning across respondents, 

some of whom are non-clinical staff. A 

related change across many items is use 

of the word ‘‘we’’ rather than ‘‘staff.’’ It 

may be unclear to respondents whether 

providers such as physicians, residents, 

and interns qualify as ‘‘staff,’’ while 

‘‘we’’ invites a more inclusive view of 

those in the hospital or unit. 

(5) Reword items to be more 

applicable to physicians and nonclinical staff. Users have indicated that 

the wording of some of the items makes 

it awkward for physicians to answer. 

For example, the section that asks about 

‘‘Your Supervisor/Manager’’ does not 

apply well to physicians who report to 

a clinical leader but not to a manager 

per se. In addition, some items were 

difficult for non-clinical staff to answer. 

For example, the item ‘‘We have patient 

safety problems in this unit’’ may not be 

relevant for staff who do not have direct 

interaction with patients (e.g., IT staff). 

(6) Align the HSOPS survey with 

AHRQ patient safety culture surveys for 

other settings. The development of 

patient safety culture surveys for other 

settings provided opportunities to test 

new items and refinements of original 

HSOPS items. Many of these items have 

performed well for other settings and 

are relevant to the hospital setting. In 

addition, standardizing items across the 

patient safety culture surveys would 

allow cross-setting comparisons that are 

not currently possible. 

(7) Reduce survey length. To increase 

response rates and reduce the survey 

administration burden for hospitals, the 

revised survey is intended to be shorter 

than the original instrument. Some of 

the original items have relatively low 

variability and therefore contribute little 

to discrimination between positive and 

negative assessment of patient safety 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

26260 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices 

culture. However, the need for careful 

testing of alternative questions means 

that the initial draft of the revised or 2.0 

survey is slightly longer than the 

original. Through cognitive 

interviewing, pilot testing, and expert 

review, we will identify items that can 

be deleted, resulting in a shorter final 

instrument. 

(8) Investigate supplemental items/

composites. Develop a set of 

supplemental items for the HSOPS 2.0 

survey pertaining to Health Information 

Technology (Health IT). 

Further details about the specific 

changes by composite and at the item 

level can be found on the AHRQ Web 

site at: http://www.ahrq.gov/

professionals/quality-patient-safety/

patientsafetyculture/hospital/update/

index.html. 

The draft 2.0 version of the 

instrument has undergone preliminary 

cognitive testing with 9 hospital 

physicians and staff members as well as 

review by a Technical Expert Panel 

(TEP). 

This research has the following goals: 

(1) Cognitively test with individual 

respondents the items in a) the draft 

HSOPS 2.0 survey and b) HSOPS 2.0 

supplemental item set assessing Health 

IT Patient Safety. Cognitive testing will 

be conducted in English and Spanish. 

(2) Conduct data collection as follows: 

a. A combined pilot test and bridge 

study for the draft HSOPS 2.0 in 40 

hospitals and modify the questionnaire 

as necessary. The pilot test component 

will entail administering the draft 2.0 

version to determine which items to 

retain. The bridge study component will 

entail administering the original HSOPS 

in addition to the draft HSOPS 2.0 

version to provide guidance to hospitals 

in understanding changes in their scores 

resulting from the new instrument 

versus changes resulting from true 

changes in culture. 

b. The pilot testing of the 

supplemental item set will be 

conducted with the same hospitals and 

respondents as the pilot test for the draft 

HSOPS 2.0. These supplemental items 

will be added to the draft HSOPS 2.0 

survey for pilot testing. 

(3) Engage a TEP in review of pilot 

results and finalize the questionnaire 

and supplemental item set. 

(4) Make the final HSOPS 2.0 survey 

and the supplemental items publicly 

available. 

This work is being conducted by 

AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, 

pursuant to AHRQ’s statutory authority 

to conduct and support research on 

healthcare and on systems for the 

delivery of such care, including 

activities with respect to the quality, 

effectiveness, efficiency, 

appropriateness and value of healthcare 

services and with respect to quality 

measurement and improvement. 42 

U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2). 

Method of Collection 

Cognitive interviews—The purpose of 

these interviews is to understand the 

cognitive processes respondents engage 

in when answering each item on the 

survey, which will aid in refining the 

survey instrument. These interviews 

will be conducted with a mix of hospital 

personnel, including physicians, nurses, 

and other types of staff (from dietitians 

to housekeepers). 

Draft HSOPS 2.0—Cognitive 

interviews have already been conducted 

with 9 respondents to inform 

development of the current draft HSOPS 

2.0. Up to three additional rounds of 

interviews will be conducted by 

telephone with a total of 27 respondents 

(nine respondents each round). The 

instrument will be translated into 

Spanish and another round of cognitive 

interviews will be conducted with nine 

Spanish-speaking respondents for a total 

of up to 36 respondents across all four 

rounds. A cognitive interview guide will 

be used for all rounds. 

Supplemental Items—Up to three 

rounds of interviews will be conducted 

by telephone for a total of 27 

respondents (nine respondents each 

round). The supplemental items will be 

translated into Spanish and another 

round of cognitive interviews will be 

conducted with nine Spanish-speaking 

respondents for a total of up to 36 

respondents across all four rounds. A 

cognitive interview guide will be used 

for all rounds. 

Feedback obtained from the first 

round of interviews for the draft HSOPS 

2.0 and the supplemental items will be 

used to refine the items. The results of 

Round 1 testing, along with the 

proposed revisions, will be reviewed 

with a TEP prior to commencing with 

Rounds 2 and/or 3 testing. In total, up 

to 72 cognitive interviews will be 

conducted to refine the draft HSOPS 2.0 

and supplemental items for pilot testing. 

(2) Pilot test and bridge study—There 

will be one data collection effort which 

will provide data for the pilot test and 

the bridge study. The pilot test of the 

draft HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental 

items will allow the assessment of the 

psychometric properties of the items 

and composites. We will assess the 

variability, reliability, factor structure 

and construct validity of the draft 

HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items and 

composites, allowing for their further 

refinement. The draft HSOPS 2.0 survey 

and supplemental items will be pilot 

tested with hospital personnel in 

approximately 40 hospitals to facilitate 

multilevel analysis of the data. 

Approximately 500 providers and staff 

will be sampled from each hospital, 

with 250 receiving HSOPS 2.0 with 

supplemental items for the pilot test and 

250 receiving the original HSOPS for the 

bridge study comparisons. A hospital 

point of contact will be recruited in 

each hospital to publicize the survey 

and assemble a list of sampled providers 

and staff. Providers and staff will 

receive notification of the survey and 

reminders via email and the web-based 

survey will be fielded entirely online. 

The goal of the bridge study will be 

to provide users with guidance on how 

their new results will compare with 

results from the original HSOPS survey. 

Although users have requested that the 

HSOPS survey be revised, they are also 

concerned about their ability to trend 

results with data from prior years. A 

similar bridge study was conducted 

during the 1994 redesign of the Census 

Bureau’s Current Population Survey 

(CPS). In the CPS bridge study, an 

additional 12,000 households were 

added to the survey’s monthly rotation 

schedule between July 1992 and 

December 1993. The added households 

received the redesigned version of the 

instrument. Thus, the CPS fielded both 

the revised and the original versions of 

the instrument simultaneously. One of 

the most important results of the CPS 

bridge study was the development of 

metrics that allowed estimates of change 

that were due to the changes in the 

instrument. These metrics were used to 

adjust the estimates produced by the 

revised CPS instrument. As a result of 

the study, key labor force metrics such 

as the unemployment rate could be 

trended accurately after the instrument’s 

redesign. 

We propose to conduct a similarly 

constructed bridge study in which 

sampled providers and staff take either 

the draft HSOPS 2.0 or original versions 

of HSOPS. As noted above, a split ballot 

design will be used in which half of 

sampled providers and staff in each 

hospital receive the original HSOPS 

(N=250) and the other half receive the 

draft HSOPS 2.0 (N=250). This bridge 

study is designed to produce metrics of 

change that are attributable to the 

changed survey instrument. The number 

of hospitals and sampled providers and 

staff for this data collection effort was 

calculated to ensure the statistical 

power needed to detect relatively small 

differences in scores (3 percentage 

points). 

(3) TEP feedback—A TEP has been 

assembled to provide input to guide 

patient safety culture survey product 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices 26261 

development and has been convened to 

discuss the proposed changes to the 

HSOPS survey and supplemental items. 

Upon completion of the pilot test, 

results will be reviewed with the TEP 

and the survey will be finalized. This 

TEP activity does not impose a burden 

on the public and is therefore not 

included in the burden estimates in 

Exhibits 1 and 2. 

(4) Dissemination activities—The 

final HSOPS 2.0 instrument and 

supplemental items will be made 

publicly available through the AHRQ 

Web site. A report from the bridge study 

will also be made public as a resource 

to hospitals making the transition to the 

new survey. This dissemination activity 

does not impose a burden on the public 

and is therefore not included in the 

burden estimates in Exhibits 1 and 2. 

Estimated Annual Respondent Burden 

Exhibit 1 shows the estimated 

annualized burden hours for the 

participants’ time to take part in this 

research. Cognitive interviews for the 

draft HSOPS 2.0 will be conducted with 

36 individuals and will take about one 

hour and 30 minutes to complete. 

Cognitive interviews for the 

supplemental items will be conducted 

with 36 individuals and take about one 

hour to complete. We will recruit 40 

hospitals for the pilot test and bridge 

study, sampling approximately 500 staff 

members in each (250 taking the 

original survey and 250 taking the 

HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental item set). 

Because we require such a large sample 

within each hospital, we will target only 

hospitals with 49 or more beds. For 

hospitals with fewer than 500 providers 

and staff, we will conduct a census in 

the hospital (assuming on average 375 

providers and staff in these hospitals 

this will yield a total of 18,375 sample 

members assuming all 40 hospitals 

participate. Assuming a response rate of 

50 percent, this will yield a total of 

9,188 completed questionnaires. The 

total annualized burden is estimated to 

be 2,387 hours. 

Exhibit 2 shows the estimated 

annualized cost burden associated with 

the participants’ time to take part in this 

research. The total cost burden is 

estimated to be $83,533.26. 

EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Form name/activity Number of 

respondents 

Hours per 

response 

Total burden 

hours 

Cognitive interviews—HSOPS 2.0 .............................................................................................. 36 1.5 54 

Cognitive interviews—Supplemental Items ................................................................................. 36 1.0 36 

Pilot test and bridge study ........................................................................................................... 9,188 0.25 2,297 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 9,260 na 2,387 

EXHIBIT 2—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST BURDEN

Form name/activity Total burden 

hours 

Average 

hourly wage 

rate * 

Total cost 

burden 

Cognitive interviews (HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items) ....................................................... 90 a $35.38 $3,184.20 

Pilot test and bridge study ........................................................................................................... 2,297 b 34.98 80,349.06 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 2,387 na 83,533.26 

aBased on the weighted average hourly wage in hospitals for one physician (29–1060; $101.53), one registered nurse (29–1141; $30.22), one 

general and operations manager (11–1021; $52.64), and six clinical lab techs (29–2010; $22.34) whose hourly wage is meant to represent 

wages for other hospital employees who may participate in cognitive interviews. bBased on the weighted average hourly wage in hospitals for 1,981 registered nurses, 209 clinical lab techs, 176 physicians and surgeons, 

and 21 general and operations managers. 

* National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2013, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (available at http://

www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_621100.htm [for general medical and surgical hospitals, NAICS 622100]). 

Request for Comments 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ’s 

information collection are requested 

with regard to any of the following: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of AHRQ health care 

research and health care information 

dissemination functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

AHRQ’s estimate of burden (including 

hours and costs) of the proposed 

collection(s) 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 upon the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and 

included in the Agency’s subsequent 

request for OMB approval of the 

proposed information collection. All 

comments will become a matter of 

public record. 

Dated: April 27, 2015. 

Sharon B. Arnold, 

Deputy Director, AHRQ. 

[FR Doc. 2015–10982 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality 

National Advisory Council for 

Healthcare Research and Quality: 

Request for Nominations for Public 

Members 

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality (AHRQ), HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of request for 

nominations for public members. 

SUMMARY: 42 U.S.C. 299c establishes a 

National Advisory Council for 

Healthcare Research and Quality (the 

Council). The Council is to advise the 

Secretary of HHS (Secretary) and the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES