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