Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Notices 41315 

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: 

h. In consultation with the artist or 

the artist’s representatives and 

consistent with professional practices in 

other arts institutions, nationality, city, 

state, country and year of birth may be 

disclosed to the public when relevant to 

an artist’s work. 

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND

DISPOSAL OF RECORDS: 

121.1/040 Significant Art Inventory 

Records. 

This series contains records used in 

identifying items within the building 

that are removable or replaceable, or 

have a significant historical and/or 

architectural value. For art associated 

with a building (such as statuary, 

paintings, and architectural features), 

records such as inventories, case files, 

art maintenance records, art appraisals 

and art restoration documents and 

related materials are included. 

Retention: Permanent. Cut off at the 

end of the fiscal year when the case file 

is closed, the artifact is destroyed, 

transferred, or otherwise deaccessioned. Transfer to NARA 15 years 

after cutoff. 

Legal Authority: DAA–0121–2015– 

0001–0007 (121.1/040). 121.1/041 

Routine Equipment and Art Inventory 

Records. This series contains records 

used in identifying equipment and 

items within the building that are 

removable or replaceable. Included are 

inventories of heating, electrical, 

plumbing, and air handling equipment, 

vertical transportation equipment and 

records related to recording the 

condition, maintenance, and associated 

schedules, documentation, and 

schematics for that equipment. For 

managing statuary, paintings, and 

architectural features associated with a 

building, records include routine 

correspondence and maintenance 

reports, exhibition and curated 

collections management documents, 

proposal submissions, and other records 

not filed under 121.1/040—Significant 

Art Inventory Records. 

Retention: Temporary. Cut off at the 

end of the fiscal year when art or 

equipment has been deaccessioned, 

obsolete, or superseded, a case file is 

closed, or when related documents 

expire. Destroy 5 fiscal years after 

cutoff. 

Legal Authority: DAA–0121–2015– 

0001–0008 (121.1/041). 

* * * * * 

HISTORY: 

86 FR 46849. 

Dated: June 29, 2022. 

Richard Speidel, 

Chief Privacy Officer, Office of the Deputy 

Chief Information Officer, General Services 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14827 Filed 7–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality 

Supplemental Evidence and Data 

Request on Radiation Therapy for 

Bone Metastases 

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 on 

Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases, 

which is currently being conducted by 

the AHRQ’s Evidence-based Practice 

Centers (EPC) Program. Access to 

published and unpublished pertinent 

scientific information will improve the 

quality of this review. 

DATES: Submission Deadline on or 

before August 11, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: 

Email submissions: epc@

ahrq.hhs.gov. 

Print submissions: 

Mailing Address: Center for Evidence 

and Practice Improvement, Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality, 

ATTN: EPC SEADs Coordinator, 5600 

Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 06E53A, 

Rockville, MD 20857 

Shipping Address (FedEx, UPS, etc.): 

Center for Evidence and Practice 

Improvement, Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality, ATTN: EPC 

SEADs Coordinator, 5600 Fishers 

Lane, Mail Stop 06E77D, Rockville, 

MD 20857 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenae Benns, Telephone: 301–427–1496 

or Email: epc@ahrq.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality has commissioned the 

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) 

Program to complete a review of the 

evidence for Radiation Therapy for 

Bone Metastases. AHRQ is conducting 

this systematic review pursuant to 

Section 902 of the Public Health Service 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a. 

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 Radiation Therapy for 

Bone Metastases, including those that 

describe adverse events. The entire 

research protocol is available online at: 

https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ 

products/radiation-therapy-bonemetastases/protocol. 

This is to notify the public that the 

EPC Program would find the following 

information on Radiation Therapy for 

Bone Metastases helpful: 

D 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. 

D For completed studies that do not 

have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, 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. 

D 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. 

D 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 is very beneficial to 

the Program. 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 website and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41316 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Notices 

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/ 

email-updates. 

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. 

Key Questions (KQ) 

KQ 1: What is the effectiveness and 

what are the harms of external beam 

radiation therapy (EBRT) in the 

palliative treatment of bone metastases 

in symptomatic adults when combined 

with additional therapies (e.g., surgery, 

radionuclide therapy, bisphosphonate 

therapy, ablation kyphoplasty/ 

vertebroplasty) compared with EBRT 

alone? 

KQ 2: For symptomatic adults with 

bone metastases who will receive initial 

radiation for palliation, what is the 

comparative effectiveness and what are 

the comparative harms of dosefractionation schemes and techniques 

for delivery (e.g., three-dimensional 

conformal radiation therapy, stereotactic 

body radiation)? 

KQ 3: For symptomatic adults with 

bone metastases who will receive reirradiation for palliation, what is the 

comparative effectiveness and what are 

the comparative harms of dosefractionation schemes and techniques 

for delivery (e.g., three-dimensional 

conformal radiation therapy, stereotactic 

body radiation)? 

Contextual Questions (CQ) 

CQ 1: What are common barriers and 

facilitators to implementing guidance in 

radiation oncology, specifically related 

to palliative radiation for metastatic 

bone disease (MBD)? 

CQ 2: What strategies could be used 

to promote the use and implementation 

of guidance in radiation oncology, 

specifically related to palliative 

radiation for MBD? 

CQ 3: In symptomatic patients 

considered for palliative radiation 

therapy for MBD, to what extent does 

patient financial distress/hardship differ 

between EBRT dose/fraction schemes or 

technique? 

PICOTS (POPULATIONS, INTERVENTIONS, COMPARATORS, OUTCOMES, TIMING, AND SETTING) 

Inclusion Exclusion 

Population ...................... KQ 1: Symptomatic adults with cancer that has metastasized to 

the bone.

KQ 2: Symptomatic adults with bone metastases who will receive 

initial palliative radiation.

• Patients <18 years old. 

• Asymptomatic patients. 

• Patients with primary bone tumors. 

KQ 3: Symptomatic adults with bone metastases who will receive 

re-radiation for palliation.

For all KQ: Consider patient and clinical characteristics (e.g., age, 

sex, social determinants of health, primary tumor histology, site 

of metastases).

Interventions ................... KQ 1: External beam radiation therapy for the palliative management of bone metastasis with co-interventions, additional therapies (e.g., surgery, radionuclide therapy, bisphosphonate therapy, ablation, kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty).KQ 1, 2, 3: Proton beam therapy. 

KQ1: Brachytherapy. 

KQ 2 and KQ 3: Comparisons of dose-fractionation schemes for 

EBRT, comparisons of EBRT techniques (e.g., conventional RT 

vs. SBRT, SBRT vs. IMRT).

Comparators .................. KQ 1: No cointervention (i.e., EBRT alone).

KQ 2 and KQ 3: Comparisons of dose-fractionation schemes, 

comparisons of EBRT modalities/techniques.

Outcomes ....................... Effectiveness: ..................................................................................

Primary outcomes: 

• Pain (level and duration) 

• Skeletal function 

• Relief of spinal cord compression 

• Quality of life 

• Non-validated measurement instruments for 

clinician or patient rated outcomes (e.g., pain, 

function, HRQOL). 

Additional (secondary) outcomes: 

• Local recurrence 

• Fracture prevention 

• Overall survival 

• Need for re-radiation 

• Use of pain medication, need for other interventions 

for pain relief 

Harms and adverse events: Harms (e.g., rate of radiation/treatment toxicity, radiation-induced fracture rates, reduced mobility, 

reduced independence), adverse events (pain flare, radiation 

recall, fatigue, skin changes, etc.).

Timing ............................ Any (timing may depend on treatments provided and outcomes 

assessed).

None. 

Setting ............................ Any .................................................................................................. None. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Notices 41317 

PICOTS (POPULATIONS, INTERVENTIONS, COMPARATORS, OUTCOMES, TIMING, AND SETTING)—Continued 

Inclusion Exclusion 

Study design and publication dates.All KQ: Focus will be on the best evidence available that permits 

direct comparisons to answer key questions.

RCTs will be initially sought; in the absence of RCTs, prospective 

comparative studies that control for confounding will be considered; if no comparative prospective studies are available, retrospective comparative studies that control for confounding will 

be considered.

In the absence of comparative studies, single arm (e.g., case series, pre-post studies) may be considered.

For evaluation of harms, comparative cohort and case-control 

studies will be included; we will focus on studies specifically 

designed to evaluate harms.

Studies of at least 10 patients per treatment arm. 

General: 

• Dosimetry modeling studies. 

• Non-human studies. 

• NRSI for effectiveness if RCTs are available. 

• Studies with <10 patients per arm. 

• Single arm studies (unless no comparative 

studies); if used, exclude studies of <10 

patients. 

• Case reports. 

Publication dates: Prior to 1985. 

Publication types: Conference abstracts or proceedings, editorials, letters, white papers, citations that have not been peer-reviewed, single 

site reports of multi-site studies. 

EBRT = external beam radiation therapy; HRQOL = health-related quality of life; IMRT = intensity modulated radiation therapy; KQ = key question; NRSI = nonrandomized studies of intervention; RCT = randomized controlled trial; RT = radiation therapy; SBRT = stereotactic radiation 

therapy. 

Dated: July 6, 2022. 

Mamatha Pancholi, 

Acting Chief of Staff, Chief Data Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14735 Filed 7–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

[60Day-22–22GR; Docket No. CDC–2022– 

0081] 

Proposed Data Collection Submitted 

for Public Comment and 

Recommendations 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice with comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of 

its continuing effort to reduce public 

burden and maximize the utility of 

government information, invites the 

general public and other federal 

agencies the opportunity to comment on 

a proposed information collection, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. This notice invites 

comment on a proposed information 

collection project titled Milestone 

Tracker In-App survey to understand 

the outcome of the Milestone Tracker 

app on developmental surveillance. 

This project is designed to evaluate the 

Milestone Tracker mobile application 

(app) developed by CDC’s ‘‘Learn the 

Signs. Act Early.’’ program and will be 

used to understand how the app is being 

used, if users find it helpful, and if the 

app helped them to identify a possible 

developmental concern(s). 

DATES: CDC must receive written 

comments on or before September 12, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CDC–2022– 

0081 by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information 

Collection Review Office, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 

Clifton Road NE, MS H21–8, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30329. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

Docket Number. CDC will post, without 

change, all relevant comments to 

www.regulations.gov. 

Please note: Submit all comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking portal 

(www.regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to 

the address listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request more information on the 

proposed project or to obtain a copy of 

the information collection plan and 

instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, 

Information Collection Review Office, 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS 

H21–8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; 

Telephone: 404–639–7570; Email: omb@

cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies 

must obtain approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for each 

collection of information they conduct 

or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also 

requires federal agencies to provide a 

60-day notice in the Federal Register 

concerning each proposed collection of 

information, including each new 

proposed collection, each proposed 

extension of existing collection of 

information, and each reinstatement of 

previously approved information 

collection before submitting the 

collection to the OMB for approval. To 

comply with this requirement, we are 

publishing this notice of a proposed 

data collection as described below. 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments that will help: 

1. Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

4. Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses; and 

5. Assess information collection costs. 

Proposed Project 

Milestone Tracker In-App Survey to 

Understand the Outcome of the 

Milestone Tracker App on 

Developmental Surveillance—New— 

National Center on Birth Defects and 

Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1