Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 51033-51035 [2012-20719]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Notices
51033
Date: September 13–14, 2012.
Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place:National Institutes of Health, 6701
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892,
(Virtual Meeting).
Contact Person: Reed A Graves, Ph.D.,
Scientific Review Officer, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6166,
MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402–
6297, gravesr@csr.nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Vascular and
Hematology Integrated Review Group
Hypertension and Microcirculation Study
Section.
Date: September 17–18, 2012.
Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications
Place: Marriott Wardman Park Washington
DC Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road NW.,
Washington, DC 20008.
Contact Person: Ai-Ping Zou, MD, Ph.D.,
Scientific Review Officer, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118,
MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–408–
9497, zouai@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,
93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National
Institutes of Health, HHS).
Date: August 27, 2012.
Time: 10:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892,
(Telephone Conference Call).
Contact Person: Nuria E. Assa-Munt, Ph.D.,
Scientific Review Officer, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4164,
MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451–
1323, assamunu@csr.nih.gov.
This notice is being published less than 15
days prior to the meeting due to the timing
limitations imposed by the review and
funding cycle.
(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,
93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National
Institutes of Health, HHS).
Dated:August 17, 2012.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[C.F.D.A. Numbers: 93.566 and 93.584]
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration
[FR Doc. 2012–20692 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am]
Notice of Change in Notification of
Refugee Social Services and Targeted
Assistance Formula Grant Allocations
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
AGENCY:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Refugee Resettlement,
ACF, HHS.
ACTION: Notification of change.
SUMMARY:
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) will publish a summary of
information collection requests under
OMB review, in compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). To request a copy of these
documents, call the SAMHSA Reports
Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
National Institutes of Health
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Center For Scientific Review; Notice of
Closed Meeting
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is
hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the
public in accordance with the
provisions set forth in sections
552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,
as amended. The grant applications and
the discussions could disclose
confidential trade secrets or commercial
property such as patentable material,
and personal information concerning
individuals associated with the grant
applications, the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific
Review Special Emphasis Panel, Special
Topic: Biochemistry.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Aug 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
Dated: August 17, 2012.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
effort to streamline the process, an
annual Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA) will no longer be
published. Instead, in addition to
annual publication of a notice in the
Federal Register, ORR will now also
post tables of the allocations and the
population figures used to calculate the
award amount on the ORR Web site. In
addition, official notification of awards
will be provided to States and Wilson/
Fish Alternative Project grantees by
ACF’s Division of Mandatory Grants.
DATES: This change is effective
immediately.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Henley Portner, Office of the Director,
Office of Refugee Resettlement, (202)
401–5363, Henley.Portner@acf.hhs.gov.
Statutory Authority: Sections 412(c)(1)(B)
and 412(c)(2)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1522(c)(1)(B)
and (c)(2)(A)).
[FR Doc. 2012–20693 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am]
Eskinder Negash,
Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement.
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
[FR Doc. 2012–20798 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–46–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Refugee Resettlement
The Office of Refugee
Resettlement, Administration for
Children and Families (ACF), is
changing the notification to States and
Wilson/Fish Alternative Project grantees
of final Social Services and Targeted
Assistance formula grant awards. Under
these two programs, formula grants are
allotted to States based on the eligible
population in each State. States and
Wilson/Fish Alternative Project grantees
use the grant awards to provide
employment and other resettlement
services to refugees, Amerasians,
asylees, Cuban and Haitian entrants,
victims of trafficking, and Iraqis and
Afghans with Special Immigrant Visas.
Sections 412(c)(1)(B) and 412(c)(2)(A)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act
do not require applications for the
Social Services and Targeted Assistance
formula grant programs. ORR has the
discretion to alter the process by which
States and Wilson/Fish Alternative
Project grantees are notified of their
annual allocations. Therefore, in an
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Project: Survey of State Underage
Drinking Prevention Policies and
Practices (OMB No. 0930–0316)—
Revision
The Sober Truth on Preventing
Underage Drinking Act (the ‘‘STOP
Act’’) 1 states that the ‘‘Secretary [of
Health and Human Services] shall
* * * annually issue a report on each
State’s performance in enacting,
enforcing, and creating laws,
regulations, and programs to prevent or
reduce underage drinking.’’ The
Secretary has delegated responsibility
for this report to SAMHSA. Therefore,
SAMHSA has developed a Survey of
1 Public Law 109–422. It is assumed Congress
intended to include the District of Columbia as part
of the State Report.
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51034
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Notices
State Underage Drinking Prevention
Policies and Practices (the ‘‘State
Survey’’) to provide input for an Annual
Report on State Underage Drinking
Prevention and Enforcement Activities
(the ‘‘State Report’’). The STOP Act also
requires the Secretary to develop ‘‘a set
of measures to be used in preparing the
report on best practices’’ and to consider
categories including but not limited to
the following:
Category #1: Sixteen specific
underage drinking laws/regulations
enacted at the State level (e.g., laws
prohibiting sales to minors; laws related
to minors in possession of alcohol);
Category #2: Enforcement and
educational programs to promote
compliance with these laws/regulations;
Category #3: Programs targeted to
youths, parents, and caregivers to deter
underage drinking and the number of
individuals served by these programs;
Category #4: The amount that each
State invests, per youth capita, on the
prevention of underage drinking broken
into five categories: (a) Compliance
check programs in retail outlets; (b)
Checkpoints and saturation patrols that
include the goal of reducing and
deterring underage drinking; (c)
Community-based, school-based, and
higher-education-based programs to
prevent underage drinking; (d)
Underage drinking prevention programs
that target youth within the juvenile
justice and child welfare systems; and
(e) Any other State efforts or programs
that target underage drinking.
Congress’ purpose in mandating the
collection of data on State policies and
programs through the State Survey is to
provide policymakers and the public
with currently unavailable but much
needed information regarding State
underage drinking prevention policies
and programs. SAMHSA and other
Federal agencies that have underage
drinking prevention as part of their
mandate will use the results of the State
Survey to inform Federal programmatic
priorities. The information gathered by
the State Survey will also establish a
resource for State agencies and the
general public for assessing policies and
programs in their own State and for
becoming familiar with the programs,
policies, and funding priorities of other
States.
Because of the broad scope of data
required by the STOP Act, SAMHSA
relies on existing data sources where
possible to minimize the survey burden
on the States. SAMHSA uses data on
State underage drinking policies from
the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism’s Alcohol Policy
Information System (APIS), an
authoritative compendium of State
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Aug 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
alcohol-related laws. The APIS data is
augmented by SAMHSA with original
legal research on State laws and policies
addressing underage drinking to include
all of the STOP Act’s requested laws
and regulations (Category #1 of the four
categories included in the STOP Act, as
described above, page 2).
The STOP Act mandates that the State
Survey assess ‘‘best practices’’ and
emphasize the importance of building
collaborations with Federally
Recognized Tribal Governments (‘‘Tribal
Governments’’). It also emphasizes the
importance at the Federal level of
promoting interagency collaboration
and to that end established the
Interagency Coordinating Committee on
the Prevention of Underage Drinking
(ICCPUD). SAMHSA has determined
that to fulfill the Congressional intent, it
is critical that the State Survey gather
information from the States regarding
the best practices standards that they
apply to their underage drinking
programs, collaborations between States
and Tribal Governments, and the
development of State-level interagency
collaborations similar to ICCPUD.
SAMHSA has determined that data on
Categories #2, #3, and #4 mandated in
the STOP Act (as listed on page 2)
(enforcement and educational programs;
programs targeting youth, parents, and
caregivers; and State expenditures) as
well as States’ best practices standards,
collaborations with Tribal Governments,
and State-level interagency
collaborations are not available from
secondary sources and therefore must be
collected from the States themselves.
The State Survey is therefore necessary
to fulfill the Congressional mandate
found in the STOP Act.
The State Survey is a single document
that is divided into four sections, as
follows:
(1) Enforcement of underage drinking
prevention laws;
(2) Underage drinking prevention
programs, including data on State best
practices standards and collaborations
with Tribal Governments;
(3) State interagency collaborations
used to implement the above programs;
and
(4) Estimates of the State funds
invested in the categories specified in
the STOP Act (see description of
Category #4, above, page 2) and
descriptions of any dedicated fees, taxes
or fines used to raise these funds.
The number of questions in each
Section is as follows:
Section 1: 31 questions
Section 2A: 18 questions 2
2 Note that the number of questions in Sections
2A is an estimate. This Section asks States to
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Section 2B: 7 questions
Section 2C: 6 questions
Section 3: 12 questions
Section 4: 17 questions
TOTAL: 91 questions
It is anticipated that respondents will
actually respond to only a subset of this
total. This is because the survey is
designed with ‘‘skip logic,’’ which
means that many questions will only be
directed to a subset of respondents who
report the existence of particular
programs or activities.
This latest version of the survey has
been revised slightly. While a few
additional questions were added, a
similar number of questions were
deleted, so that the revised survey does
not place any additional burden on
States. All questions continue to ask
only for readily available data.
The changes can be summarized as
follows:
Part I
The revised version of the survey
adds five sub-questions to Part I, which
deals with enforcement. The subquestions seek additional details about
the information sought in the original
questions. The data sought in the subquestions are very similar to the data
sought in the original questions and will
likely be kept or stored in the same
location by the same personnel.,
according to our interviews with
respondents. Accordingly, answering
these new sub-questions should require
very little if any work on the part of
respondents.
The question asking how local and
State enforcement agencies coordinate
their efforts to enforce underage
drinking laws has been dropped.
A question has been added seeking an
estimate of the number of retail
licensees in the State, if readily
available. This question was not asked
in the previous version of the Survey,
but it was determined that reliable data
on the number of retail licensees is not
available from another source.
Under the existing question regarding
number of compliance checks/decoy
operations conducted by the State
alcohol law enforcement agency, two
sub-questions have been added. One
sub-question asks whether these
compliance check/decoy operations are
conducted at both on-sale and off-sale
establishments, and the second subquestion asks whether the agency
conducts random compliance check/
identify their programs that are specific to underage
drinking prevention. For each program identified
there are six follow-up questions. Based on
feedback from stakeholders and pilot testers, it is
anticipated that States will report an average of
three programs for a total of 18 questions.
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Notices
decoy operation. If the answer is yes,
the question asks for the number of
licensees subject to random checks, and
the number who failed.
Under the existing question asking for
the total amount of fines imposed on
retail establishments for furnishing
alcohol to minors, a sub-question has
been added requesting the dollar
amounts of the smallest fine imposed
and the largest fine imposed. Similarly,
under the existing question asking for
the total number of suspensions
imposed on retail establishments for
furnishing violations, a sub-question has
been added asking the shortest and
longest period of suspension, in days.
These questions will help to establish
the median for fines and days of
suspension so as to provide a more
accurate picture of enforcement efforts
in the States.
Part II
In Part II, the question regarding
‘‘specific’’ underage drinking prevention
programs and the question regarding
‘‘related’’ underage drinking prevention
programs have been combined, and the
references to ‘‘specific’’ and ‘‘related’’
have been eliminated. States no longer
need to categorize their programs as one
or the other and need only list their
programs.
In the section asking for a description
of each program, the existing survey
asked for an estimate of how many
youth, parents, and/or caregivers were
served by the program. This section has
been revised to ask whether the program
is aimed at a specific, countable
population, or the general population.
For programs that are aimed at the
general population, the question of how
many youth, parents, and/or caregivers
were served has been eliminated.
Also in the section asking for a
description of each program, the
existing survey asked for the time
period for each program. This question
has been eliminated.
The question on best practices has
been clarified. A multiple choice answer
has been added that asks for the source
of the State’s best practices standards:
Federal agency(ies); State agency(ies);
Non-governmental agency(ies), or Other
[please describe].
To ensure that the State Survey
obtains the necessary data while
minimizing the burden on the States,
SAMHSA has conducted a lengthy and
comprehensive planning process. It has
sought advice from key stakeholders (as
mandated by the STOP Act) including
hosting an all-day stakeholders meeting,
conducting two field tests with State
51035
officials likely to be responsible for
completing the State Survey, and
investigating and testing various State
Survey formats, online delivery systems,
and data collection methodologies.
Based on these investigations,
SAMHSA has decided to collect the
required data using an electronic file
distributed to States via email. The State
Survey will be sent to each State
Governor’s office and the Office of the
Mayor of the District of Columbia, for a
total of 51 survey respondents. Based on
the experience from the last two years
of administering the State Survey, it is
anticipated that the State Governors will
designate staff from State agencies that
have access to the requested data
(typically State Alcohol Beverage
Control [ABC] agencies and State
Substance Abuse Program agencies).
SAMHSA will provide both telephone
and electronic technical support to State
agency staff and will emphasize that the
States are only expected to provide data
that is readily available and are not
required to provide data that has not
already been collected. The burden
estimate below takes into account these
assumptions.
The estimated annual response
burden to collect this information is as
follows:
Number of
respondents
Responses/
respondent
Burden/
response
(hours)
Annual burden
(hours)
State Questionnaire .........................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Instrument
51
1
17.7
902.7
Written comments and
recommendations concerning the
proposed information collection should
be sent by September 24, 2012 to the
SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). To ensure timely receipt of
comments, and to avoid potential delays
in OMB’s receipt and processing of mail
sent through the U.S. Postal Service,
commenters are encouraged to submit
their comments to OMB via email to:
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Although commenters are encouraged to
send their comments via email,
commenters may also fax their
comments to: 202–395–7285.
Commenters may also mail them to:
Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Aug 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
Affairs, New Executive Office Building,
Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.
Summer King,
Statistician.
[FR Doc. 2012–20719 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162–20–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) will publish a summary of
information collection requests under
OMB review, in compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). To request a copy of these
documents, call the SAMHSA Reports
Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Project: Target Capacity Expansion
grants for Jail Diversion Programs—
(OMB No. 0930–0277)—Revision
The Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration’s
(SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health
Services (CMHS) has implemented the
Targeted Capacity Expansion Grants for
Jail Diversion Programs, the Jail
Diversion and Trauma Recovery
Program represents the current cohort of
grantees. The Program currently collects
client outcome measures from program
participants who agree to participate in
the evaluation. Data collection consists
of interviews conducted at baseline, six
and twelve intervals, as well the
collection of data on participants from
existing program records.
The current proposal requests the
continuation of the data collection
instruments previously approved by
OMB. The only revision requested is a
reduction in the respondent burden
hours.
The following tables summarize the
burden for the data collection.
E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM
23AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51033-51035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20719]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information
collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these
documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Project: Survey of State Underage Drinking Prevention Policies and
Practices (OMB No. 0930-0316)-- Revision
The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act (the ``STOP
Act'') \1\ states that the ``Secretary [of Health and Human Services]
shall * * * annually issue a report on each State's performance in
enacting, enforcing, and creating laws, regulations, and programs to
prevent or reduce underage drinking.'' The Secretary has delegated
responsibility for this report to SAMHSA. Therefore, SAMHSA has
developed a Survey of
[[Page 51034]]
State Underage Drinking Prevention Policies and Practices (the ``State
Survey'') to provide input for an Annual Report on State Underage
Drinking Prevention and Enforcement Activities (the ``State Report'').
The STOP Act also requires the Secretary to develop ``a set of measures
to be used in preparing the report on best practices'' and to consider
categories including but not limited to the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 109-422. It is assumed Congress intended to
include the District of Columbia as part of the State Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category #1: Sixteen specific underage drinking laws/regulations
enacted at the State level (e.g., laws prohibiting sales to minors;
laws related to minors in possession of alcohol);
Category #2: Enforcement and educational programs to promote
compliance with these laws/regulations;
Category #3: Programs targeted to youths, parents, and caregivers
to deter underage drinking and the number of individuals served by
these programs;
Category #4: The amount that each State invests, per youth capita,
on the prevention of underage drinking broken into five categories: (a)
Compliance check programs in retail outlets; (b) Checkpoints and
saturation patrols that include the goal of reducing and deterring
underage drinking; (c) Community-based, school-based, and higher-
education-based programs to prevent underage drinking; (d) Underage
drinking prevention programs that target youth within the juvenile
justice and child welfare systems; and (e) Any other State efforts or
programs that target underage drinking.
Congress' purpose in mandating the collection of data on State
policies and programs through the State Survey is to provide
policymakers and the public with currently unavailable but much needed
information regarding State underage drinking prevention policies and
programs. SAMHSA and other Federal agencies that have underage drinking
prevention as part of their mandate will use the results of the State
Survey to inform Federal programmatic priorities. The information
gathered by the State Survey will also establish a resource for State
agencies and the general public for assessing policies and programs in
their own State and for becoming familiar with the programs, policies,
and funding priorities of other States.
Because of the broad scope of data required by the STOP Act, SAMHSA
relies on existing data sources where possible to minimize the survey
burden on the States. SAMHSA uses data on State underage drinking
policies from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's
Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS), an authoritative compendium
of State alcohol-related laws. The APIS data is augmented by SAMHSA
with original legal research on State laws and policies addressing
underage drinking to include all of the STOP Act's requested laws and
regulations (Category 1 of the four categories included in the
STOP Act, as described above, page 2).
The STOP Act mandates that the State Survey assess ``best
practices'' and emphasize the importance of building collaborations
with Federally Recognized Tribal Governments (``Tribal Governments'').
It also emphasizes the importance at the Federal level of promoting
interagency collaboration and to that end established the Interagency
Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD).
SAMHSA has determined that to fulfill the Congressional intent, it is
critical that the State Survey gather information from the States
regarding the best practices standards that they apply to their
underage drinking programs, collaborations between States and Tribal
Governments, and the development of State-level interagency
collaborations similar to ICCPUD.
SAMHSA has determined that data on Categories 2,
3, and 4 mandated in the STOP Act (as listed on page
2) (enforcement and educational programs; programs targeting youth,
parents, and caregivers; and State expenditures) as well as States'
best practices standards, collaborations with Tribal Governments, and
State-level interagency collaborations are not available from secondary
sources and therefore must be collected from the States themselves. The
State Survey is therefore necessary to fulfill the Congressional
mandate found in the STOP Act.
The State Survey is a single document that is divided into four
sections, as follows:
(1) Enforcement of underage drinking prevention laws;
(2) Underage drinking prevention programs, including data on State
best practices standards and collaborations with Tribal Governments;
(3) State interagency collaborations used to implement the above
programs; and
(4) Estimates of the State funds invested in the categories
specified in the STOP Act (see description of Category 4,
above, page 2) and descriptions of any dedicated fees, taxes or fines
used to raise these funds.
The number of questions in each Section is as follows:
Section 1: 31 questions
Section 2A: 18 questions \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Note that the number of questions in Sections 2A is an
estimate. This Section asks States to identify their programs that
are specific to underage drinking prevention. For each program
identified there are six follow-up questions. Based on feedback from
stakeholders and pilot testers, it is anticipated that States will
report an average of three programs for a total of 18 questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2B: 7 questions
Section 2C: 6 questions
Section 3: 12 questions
Section 4: 17 questions
TOTAL: 91 questions
It is anticipated that respondents will actually respond to only a
subset of this total. This is because the survey is designed with
``skip logic,'' which means that many questions will only be directed
to a subset of respondents who report the existence of particular
programs or activities.
This latest version of the survey has been revised slightly. While
a few additional questions were added, a similar number of questions
were deleted, so that the revised survey does not place any additional
burden on States. All questions continue to ask only for readily
available data.
The changes can be summarized as follows:
Part I
The revised version of the survey adds five sub-questions to Part
I, which deals with enforcement. The sub-questions seek additional
details about the information sought in the original questions. The
data sought in the sub-questions are very similar to the data sought in
the original questions and will likely be kept or stored in the same
location by the same personnel., according to our interviews with
respondents. Accordingly, answering these new sub-questions should
require very little if any work on the part of respondents.
The question asking how local and State enforcement agencies
coordinate their efforts to enforce underage drinking laws has been
dropped.
A question has been added seeking an estimate of the number of
retail licensees in the State, if readily available. This question was
not asked in the previous version of the Survey, but it was determined
that reliable data on the number of retail licensees is not available
from another source.
Under the existing question regarding number of compliance checks/
decoy operations conducted by the State alcohol law enforcement agency,
two sub-questions have been added. One sub-question asks whether these
compliance check/decoy operations are conducted at both on-sale and
off-sale establishments, and the second sub-question asks whether the
agency conducts random compliance check/
[[Page 51035]]
decoy operation. If the answer is yes, the question asks for the number
of licensees subject to random checks, and the number who failed.
Under the existing question asking for the total amount of fines
imposed on retail establishments for furnishing alcohol to minors, a
sub-question has been added requesting the dollar amounts of the
smallest fine imposed and the largest fine imposed. Similarly, under
the existing question asking for the total number of suspensions
imposed on retail establishments for furnishing violations, a sub-
question has been added asking the shortest and longest period of
suspension, in days. These questions will help to establish the median
for fines and days of suspension so as to provide a more accurate
picture of enforcement efforts in the States.
Part II
In Part II, the question regarding ``specific'' underage drinking
prevention programs and the question regarding ``related'' underage
drinking prevention programs have been combined, and the references to
``specific'' and ``related'' have been eliminated. States no longer
need to categorize their programs as one or the other and need only
list their programs.
In the section asking for a description of each program, the
existing survey asked for an estimate of how many youth, parents, and/
or caregivers were served by the program. This section has been revised
to ask whether the program is aimed at a specific, countable
population, or the general population. For programs that are aimed at
the general population, the question of how many youth, parents, and/or
caregivers were served has been eliminated.
Also in the section asking for a description of each program, the
existing survey asked for the time period for each program. This
question has been eliminated.
The question on best practices has been clarified. A multiple
choice answer has been added that asks for the source of the State's
best practices standards: Federal agency(ies); State agency(ies); Non-
governmental agency(ies), or Other [please describe].
To ensure that the State Survey obtains the necessary data while
minimizing the burden on the States, SAMHSA has conducted a lengthy and
comprehensive planning process. It has sought advice from key
stakeholders (as mandated by the STOP Act) including hosting an all-day
stakeholders meeting, conducting two field tests with State officials
likely to be responsible for completing the State Survey, and
investigating and testing various State Survey formats, online delivery
systems, and data collection methodologies.
Based on these investigations, SAMHSA has decided to collect the
required data using an electronic file distributed to States via email.
The State Survey will be sent to each State Governor's office and the
Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, for a total of 51
survey respondents. Based on the experience from the last two years of
administering the State Survey, it is anticipated that the State
Governors will designate staff from State agencies that have access to
the requested data (typically State Alcohol Beverage Control [ABC]
agencies and State Substance Abuse Program agencies). SAMHSA will
provide both telephone and electronic technical support to State agency
staff and will emphasize that the States are only expected to provide
data that is readily available and are not required to provide data
that has not already been collected. The burden estimate below takes
into account these assumptions.
The estimated annual response burden to collect this information is
as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden/
Instrument Number of Responses/ response Annual burden
respondents respondent (hours) (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Questionnaire......................... 51 1 17.7 902.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed
information collection should be sent by September 24, 2012 to the
SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely
receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and
processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are
encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. Although commenters are encouraged to send
their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to:
202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management
and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive
Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.
Summer King,
Statistician.
[FR Doc. 2012-20719 Filed 8-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
