Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 1553-1555 [E7-310]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Notices
Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: Villa Florence Hotel, 225 Powell
Street, San Francisco, CA 94012.
Contact Person: Dana Jeffrey Plude, PhD,
Scientific Review Administrator, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3176,
MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435–
2309, pluded@csr.nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific
Review Special Emphasis Panel; Innovative
Biomedical Imaging and Technologies.
Date: February 17, 2007.
Time: 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 W. Mission
Bay Drive, San Diego, CA 92109.
Contact Person: Xiang-Ning Li, MD, PhD,
Scientific Review Administrator, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5112,
MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435–
1744, lixiang@csr.nih.gov.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine;
93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333,
93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844,
93.486–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National
Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: January 8, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07–102 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–M
National Institutes of Health
Center for Scientific Review; Notice of
Closed Meeting.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Notice is hereby given of a change in
the meeting of the Enabling
Bioanalytical and Biophysical
Technologies Study Section, January 31,
2007, 8:30 a.m. to February 1, 2007, 5
p.m., Courtyard Marriott, 299 Second
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 which
was published in the Federal Register
on December 5, 2006, 71 FR 70522–
70523.
The meetings will be held February 1,
2007, to February 2, 2007. The meeting
time and location remain the same. The
meeting is closed to the public.
BILLING CODE 4140–01–M
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
In compliance with Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 concerning
opportunity for public comment on
proposed collections of information, the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration will publish
periodic summaries of proposed
projects. To request more information
on the proposed projects or to obtain a
copy of the information collection
plans, call the SAMHSA Reports
Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collections of information
are 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.
Proposed Project: Independent
Evaluation of the Community Mental
Health Services Block Grant Program—
NEW
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Dated: January 8, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07–103 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
The Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), the Center for Mental
Health Services (CMHS) administers the
Community Mental Health Services
Block Grant (CMHS BG). The
Community Mental Health Services
Block Grant was funded by Congress to
develop community-based systems of
care for adults with serious mental
illness (SMI) and children with severe
emotional disorders (SED), and has been
the largest Federal program dedicated to
improving community mental health
services. States have latitude in
determining how to spend their funds to
support services for adults with SMI
and children with SED. The only
requirements outlined in the
authorizing legislation for State receipt
of CMHS BG funds are provisions to
increase children’s services, create a
State mental health planning council,
and to develop a State mental health
plan to be submitted to the Secretary of
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1553
Health and Human Services (HHS). The
State mental health planning council is
to comprise various State constituents
including providers, administrators, and
mental health services consumers. Each
State plan must:
• Provide for the establishment and
implementation of an organized
community-based system of care for
individuals with mental illness.
• Estimate the incidence and
prevalence of adults with SMI and
children with SED within the State.
• Provide for a system of integrated
services appropriate for the multiple
needs of children.
• Provide for outreach to and services
for rural and homeless populations.
• Describe the financial and other
resources necessary to implement the
plan and describe how the CMHS BG
funds are to be spent.
In addition, Congress included a
maintenance-of-effort (MOE)
requirement that a State’s expenditures
for community mental health services
be no less than the average spent in the
two preceding fiscal years.
The CMHS BG received an adequate
rating on the OMB PART in 2003.
Clearly in the follow up period to that
assessment, one of the critical areas that
must be addressed is the expectation
that an independent and objective
evaluation of the program is to be
carried out initially and at regular
intervals. In addition, the program
evaluation has been designed to be of
high quality, sufficient scope and
unbiased (with appropriate
documentation for each of these
elements). In fact it is in addressing an
evaluation of the program that critical
elements of accountability and program
performance are also identified and
initially assessed. The rigor of the
evaluation is seen in how it addresses
the effectiveness of the program’s
impact with regard to its mission and
long term goals. By legislative design
the CMHS BG Program has previously
focused on legislative compliance. Now
it addresses the impact of the program
nationally, over time, with a view to
coming to terms with identified program
deficiencies and the corresponding
impact of proposed changes.
In this evaluation, a multi-method
evaluation approach is being used to
examine Federal and State performance
with regard to the CMHS BG and its
identified goals. This approach
emphasizes a qualitative and
quantitative examination of both the
CMHS BG process (e.g., activities and
outputs in the logic model) and systemlevel outcomes whereby Federal and
State stakeholder perspectives on the
CMHS BG, as captured through semi-
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
1554
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Notices
structured interviews and surveys, are
corroborated and compared to the
considerable amount of alreadycollected source documents provided by
States and CMHS (e.g., State plans,
implementation reports, review
summaries and monitoring site visit
reports). More specifically, data
collection will be conducted using four
primary strategies: interviews and
surveys of key stakeholders, data
abstraction from source documents (i.e.,
CMHS BG applications and
implementation reports), secondary data
analysis (e.g., analysis of Uniform
Reporting System (URS) data and
National Outcome Measures (NOMS),
and case studies highlighting important
themes and issues relating to State
CMHS BG implementation.
This evaluation is also seeking to
measure the effectiveness of the CMHS
BG through a variety of infrastructure
indicators and NOMS measures.
Infrastructure refers to the resources,
systems, and policies that support the
nation’s public mental health service
delivery system, and is a potential
contributor to significant State
behavioral health system outcomes.
Examples of infrastructure include staff
training, consumer involvement in the
State mental health system, policy
changes, and service availability.
Outcomes related to infrastructure and
the NOMS were included in the
program logic model that has been
developed and are expected to be
examined through the data collection
strategies listed above.
Infrastructure indicators that can be
measured in this evaluation, for which
some form of data can be collected
include:
• Range of available services within a
State
• Capacity (# of persons served)
• Specialized services (such as cooccurring disorders)
• Number of persons served by
evidence-based practices (EBPs)
• Staff credentialing (identify patterns)
• Program accreditation (as a quality
marker)
• Staff/workforce development (TA &
training available for State staff)
• Connections with other agencies (e.g.,
MOUs, joint funding, joint
appointments)
• Policy changes initiated
• Policy changes completed
• Consumer involvement
Two data collection strategies will be
used for this evaluation: Two (2) openended interviews and four (4) webbased surveys. Interviews will be
conducted with Federal staff involved
in the administration of the CMHS BG
and State staff from all States and
Territories involved in their State’s
implementation of the CMHS BG
program. The two interview guides, one
for Federal staff and one for State staff,
range from 54 to 94 open-ended
questions. The Federal staff interview is
expected to take one hour to complete
while the State staff interview is
expected to take two hours on average
to complete, and can be done over two
sessions. Because of the relatively small
number of Federal and State staff
participating in the evaluation,
interviews are an optimal data
collection strategy to gather the
extensive qualitative data needed for the
evaluation while minimizing reporting
burden. Federal staff stakeholders will
be interviewed in person due to their
close proximity to the interviewers and
State staff stakeholder interviews will be
conducted via conference call. State
Mental Health Agency (SMHA)
Commissioners will select those State
staff who are knowledgeable about the
CMHS BG for participation in the
interviews. It is anticipated that, at a
minimum, a State Planner, State Data
Analyst, and the SMHA Commissioner
will participate.
The four (4) web-based surveys will
be distributed nationally to State
Planning Council Chairs, State Planning
Council Members, CMHS BG Regional
Reviewers, and CMHS BG Monitoring
Site Visitors. The web-based surveys
will be tailored so that each of the four
different stakeholder groups will receive
survey questions designed to capture
their specific knowledge of and
experience with the CMHS BG. It is
estimated that any one individual
stakeholder will require one hour to
complete their own survey, which
contains a range of 22 to 42 mostly fillin-the blank type questions. Each
member of the four major stakeholder
groups will submit their responses to
the survey online over a three-week
period.
Table 1 summarizes the estimate of
the total time burden to Federal and
State staff stakeholders resulting from
the interviews. Table 2 summarizes the
estimate of the total time burden to
Planning Council members, Regional
Reviewers, and Monitoring Site Visitors
resulting from completion of the webbased surveys. Table 3 summarizes the
total reporting burden for all data
collection strategies.
TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED REPORTING BURDEN OF INTERVIEWS
Number of
respondents
Respondent
Average hours
per interview
Estimated
total burden
(hours)
State Mental Health Agency Commissioner ................................................................................
State Planners .............................................................................................................................
State Data Analysts .....................................................................................................................
Federal CMHS Block Grant Staff ................................................................................................
59
59
59
26
2
2
2
1
118
118
118
26
Total Burden .........................................................................................................................
203
........................
380
TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED REPORTING BURDEN OF WEB-BASED SURVEYS
Number of
respondents
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Respondent
Average hours
per survey
Estimated
total burden
(hours)
Planning Council Members ..........................................................................................................
Regional Block Grant Reviewers .................................................................................................
Monitoring Site Visitors ................................................................................................................
1,700
35
28
1
1
1
1,700
35
28
Total Burden .........................................................................................................................
1,763
........................
1,763
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Notices
and will be accepted until February 12,
TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED REPORTING
BURDEN OF ALL DATA COLLECTION 2007. This process is conducted in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
STRATEGIES
Written comments and/or suggestions
regarding the item(s) contained in this
Data collection strategy
notice, especially regarding the
estimated public burden and associated
response time, should be directed to the
Interviews ..............................
380
Web-based Surveys .............
1,763 Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). USICE, Office of Asset
Total Burden ..................
2,143 Management, Records Branch 425 I St
NW., room 1122, Washington, DC
20536. Comments may also be
This Federal Register Notice is
submitted to ICE via facsimile to 202–
focused on the interviews and surveys
514–1867 or via e-mail at
that will be administered to the CMHS
ICERecordsbranch@dhs.gov. Any
BG stakeholders as those methods of
data collection require OMB approval. It comments should also be submitted to
is anticipated that in future independent the OMB Desk Officer by e-mail at
kastrich@omb.eop.gov or faxed to 202–
evaluations of the CMHS BG Program
395–6974.
focus will be given to the NOMS and
When submitting comments by e-mail
their implications for program
please make sure to add OMB Control
performance and goals.
Number 1653–0022. Written comments
Send comments to Summer King,
and suggestions from the public and
SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer,
affected agencies should address one or
Room 7–1044, One Choke Cherry Road,
Rockville, MD 20857. Written comments more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of
should be received within 60 days of
information is necessary for the proper
this notice.
performance of the functions of the
Dated: January 5, 2007.
agency, including whether the
Elaine Parry,
information will have practical utility;
Acting Director, Office of Program Services.
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
[FR Doc. E7–310 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am]
agencies estimate of the burden of the
BILLING CODE 4162–20–P
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
SECURITY
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
U.S. Immigration and Customs
(4) Minimize the burden of the
Enforcement
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
Agency Information Collection
use of appropriate automated,
Activities: Extension of an Existing
electronic, mechanical, or other
Information Collection; Comment
technological collection techniques or
Request.
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information
responses.
Collection under Review: Immigration
Bond; Form I–352, OMB Control
Overview of This information collection
Number 1653–0022.
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Extension of currently approved
The Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs information collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Enforcement (USICE) has submitted the
following information collection request Immigration Bond.
to the Office of Management and Budget
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
(OMB) for review and clearance in
the applicable component of the
accordance with the Paperwork
Department of Homeland Security
Reduction Act of 1995. The information sponsoring the collection: I–352. U.S.
collection was previously published in
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
the Federal Register on October 23,
(4) Affected public who will be asked
2006, Vol. 71. No. 204 62117–8,
or required to respond, as well as a brief
allowing for a 60-day public comment
abstract: Primary: Individuals and
period. No comments were received on
Households. This information collection
this information collection.
provides a uniform method for
The purpose of this notice is to allow
applicants to apply for refugee status
an additional 30 days for public
and contains the information needed in
comments. Comments are encouraged
order to adjudicate such applications.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Estimated
total burden
(hours)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:41 Jan 11, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1555
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: 30,000 responses at
approximately 30 minutes per response.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: 15,000 annual burden hours.
If additional information is required
contact: ICE Records Management
Branch via Facsimile 202–514–1867 or
via e-mail at
ICERecordsbranch@dhs.gov.
Dated: January 9, 2007.
Ricardo Lemus,
Chief, Records Management Branch, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E7–343 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Extension of an Existing
Information Collection; Comment
Request
30-Day Notice of Information
Collection Under Review: Data Relating
to Beneficiary of Private Bill; Form G–
79A, OMB Control Number 1653–0026.
ACTION:
The Department of Homeland
Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (USICE) has submitted the
following information collection request
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and clearance in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. The information
collection was previously published in
the Federal Register on October 23,
2006, at 71 FR 62116, allowing for a 60day public comment period. No
comments were received on this
information collection.
The purpose of this notice is to allow
an additional 30 days for public
comments. Comments are encouraged
and will be accepted until February 12,
2007. This process is conducted in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions
regarding the item(s) contained in this
notice, especially regarding the
estimated public burden and associated
response time, should be directed to the
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), USICE, Office of Asset
Management, Records Branch 425 I St.,
NW., Room 1122, Washington, DC
20536. Comments may also be
submitted to ICE via facsimile to 202–
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 8 (Friday, January 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1553-1555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-310]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed
collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration will publish periodic summaries of proposed
projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to
obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA
Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of
information are 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.
Proposed Project: Independent Evaluation of the Community Mental Health
Services Block Grant Program--NEW
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) administers the
Community Mental Health Services Block Grant (CMHS BG). The Community
Mental Health Services Block Grant was funded by Congress to develop
community-based systems of care for adults with serious mental illness
(SMI) and children with severe emotional disorders (SED), and has been
the largest Federal program dedicated to improving community mental
health services. States have latitude in determining how to spend their
funds to support services for adults with SMI and children with SED.
The only requirements outlined in the authorizing legislation for State
receipt of CMHS BG funds are provisions to increase children's
services, create a State mental health planning council, and to develop
a State mental health plan to be submitted to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (HHS). The State mental health planning council is
to comprise various State constituents including providers,
administrators, and mental health services consumers. Each State plan
must:
Provide for the establishment and implementation of an
organized community-based system of care for individuals with mental
illness.
Estimate the incidence and prevalence of adults with SMI
and children with SED within the State.
Provide for a system of integrated services appropriate
for the multiple needs of children.
Provide for outreach to and services for rural and
homeless populations.
Describe the financial and other resources necessary to
implement the plan and describe how the CMHS BG funds are to be spent.
In addition, Congress included a maintenance-of-effort (MOE)
requirement that a State's expenditures for community mental health
services be no less than the average spent in the two preceding fiscal
years.
The CMHS BG received an adequate rating on the OMB PART in 2003.
Clearly in the follow up period to that assessment, one of the critical
areas that must be addressed is the expectation that an independent and
objective evaluation of the program is to be carried out initially and
at regular intervals. In addition, the program evaluation has been
designed to be of high quality, sufficient scope and unbiased (with
appropriate documentation for each of these elements). In fact it is in
addressing an evaluation of the program that critical elements of
accountability and program performance are also identified and
initially assessed. The rigor of the evaluation is seen in how it
addresses the effectiveness of the program's impact with regard to its
mission and long term goals. By legislative design the CMHS BG Program
has previously focused on legislative compliance. Now it addresses the
impact of the program nationally, over time, with a view to coming to
terms with identified program deficiencies and the corresponding impact
of proposed changes.
In this evaluation, a multi-method evaluation approach is being
used to examine Federal and State performance with regard to the CMHS
BG and its identified goals. This approach emphasizes a qualitative and
quantitative examination of both the CMHS BG process (e.g., activities
and outputs in the logic model) and system-level outcomes whereby
Federal and State stakeholder perspectives on the CMHS BG, as captured
through semi-
[[Page 1554]]
structured interviews and surveys, are corroborated and compared to the
considerable amount of already-collected source documents provided by
States and CMHS (e.g., State plans, implementation reports, review
summaries and monitoring site visit reports). More specifically, data
collection will be conducted using four primary strategies: interviews
and surveys of key stakeholders, data abstraction from source documents
(i.e., CMHS BG applications and implementation reports), secondary data
analysis (e.g., analysis of Uniform Reporting System (URS) data and
National Outcome Measures (NOMS), and case studies highlighting
important themes and issues relating to State CMHS BG implementation.
This evaluation is also seeking to measure the effectiveness of the
CMHS BG through a variety of infrastructure indicators and NOMS
measures. Infrastructure refers to the resources, systems, and policies
that support the nation's public mental health service delivery system,
and is a potential contributor to significant State behavioral health
system outcomes. Examples of infrastructure include staff training,
consumer involvement in the State mental health system, policy changes,
and service availability. Outcomes related to infrastructure and the
NOMS were included in the program logic model that has been developed
and are expected to be examined through the data collection strategies
listed above.
Infrastructure indicators that can be measured in this evaluation,
for which some form of data can be collected include:
Range of available services within a State
Capacity ( of persons served)
Specialized services (such as co-occurring disorders)
Number of persons served by evidence-based practices (EBPs)
Staff credentialing (identify patterns)
Program accreditation (as a quality marker)
Staff/workforce development (TA & training available for State
staff)
Connections with other agencies (e.g., MOUs, joint funding,
joint appointments)
Policy changes initiated
Policy changes completed
Consumer involvement
Two data collection strategies will be used for this evaluation:
Two (2) open-ended interviews and four (4) web-based surveys.
Interviews will be conducted with Federal staff involved in the
administration of the CMHS BG and State staff from all States and
Territories involved in their State's implementation of the CMHS BG
program. The two interview guides, one for Federal staff and one for
State staff, range from 54 to 94 open-ended questions. The Federal
staff interview is expected to take one hour to complete while the
State staff interview is expected to take two hours on average to
complete, and can be done over two sessions. Because of the relatively
small number of Federal and State staff participating in the
evaluation, interviews are an optimal data collection strategy to
gather the extensive qualitative data needed for the evaluation while
minimizing reporting burden. Federal staff stakeholders will be
interviewed in person due to their close proximity to the interviewers
and State staff stakeholder interviews will be conducted via conference
call. State Mental Health Agency (SMHA) Commissioners will select those
State staff who are knowledgeable about the CMHS BG for participation
in the interviews. It is anticipated that, at a minimum, a State
Planner, State Data Analyst, and the SMHA Commissioner will
participate.
The four (4) web-based surveys will be distributed nationally to
State Planning Council Chairs, State Planning Council Members, CMHS BG
Regional Reviewers, and CMHS BG Monitoring Site Visitors. The web-based
surveys will be tailored so that each of the four different stakeholder
groups will receive survey questions designed to capture their specific
knowledge of and experience with the CMHS BG. It is estimated that any
one individual stakeholder will require one hour to complete their own
survey, which contains a range of 22 to 42 mostly fill-in-the blank
type questions. Each member of the four major stakeholder groups will
submit their responses to the survey online over a three-week period.
Table 1 summarizes the estimate of the total time burden to Federal
and State staff stakeholders resulting from the interviews. Table 2
summarizes the estimate of the total time burden to Planning Council
members, Regional Reviewers, and Monitoring Site Visitors resulting
from completion of the web-based surveys. Table 3 summarizes the total
reporting burden for all data collection strategies.
Table 1.--Estimated Reporting Burden of Interviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Respondent Number of Average hours total burden
respondents per interview (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Mental Health Agency Commissioner......................... 59 2 118
State Planners.................................................. 59 2 118
State Data Analysts............................................. 59 2 118
Federal CMHS Block Grant Staff.................................. 26 1 26
-----------------------------------------------
Total Burden................................................ 203 .............. 380
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Estimated Reporting Burden of Web-Based Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Respondent Number of Average hours total burden
respondents per survey (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Council Members........................................ 1,700 1 1,700
Regional Block Grant Reviewers.................................. 35 1 35
Monitoring Site Visitors........................................ 28 1 28
-----------------------------------------------
Total Burden................................................ 1,763 .............. 1,763
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1555]]
Table 3.--Estimated Reporting Burden of all Data Collection Strategies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Data collection strategy total burden
(hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interviews.............................................. 380
Web-based Surveys....................................... 1,763
---------------
Total Burden........................................ 2,143
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Federal Register Notice is focused on the interviews and
surveys that will be administered to the CMHS BG stakeholders as those
methods of data collection require OMB approval. It is anticipated that
in future independent evaluations of the CMHS BG Program focus will be
given to the NOMS and their implications for program performance and
goals.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer,
Room 7-1044, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857. Written
comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Dated: January 5, 2007.
Elaine Parry,
Acting Director, Office of Program Services.
[FR Doc. E7-310 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P