Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices 30625

collecting information used in the

submission of false claims.

• Questionable documentation for

medical necessity of professional

services. Practitioners who are billing

inappropriately may also enter, or fail to

enter, important information on medical

charts.

What To Do if You Have Information

About Fraud and Abuse Against the

Medicare and Medicaid Programs

If you have information about the

types of activities described above,

contact any of the field offices of the

Office of Investigations of the Office of

Inspector General, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, at the

following locations:

Field offices States served Telephone

Boston ...................................................................................... MA, VT, NH, ME RI, CT ......................................................... 617–565–2660

New York .................................................................................. NY, NJ, PR, VI ........................................................................ 212–264–1691

Philadelphia .............................................................................. PA, MD, DE, WV, VA .............................................................. 215–596–6796

Atlanta ...................................................................................... GA, KY, NC, SC, FL, TN, AL, MS (No. District) ..................... 404–331–2131

Chicago .................................................................................... IL, MN, WI, MI, IN, OH, IA, MO .............................................. 312–353–2740

Dallas ....................................................................................... TX, NM, OK, AR, LA, MS (So. District), CO, UT, WY, MT,

ND, SD, NE, KS.

214–767–8406

Los Angeles ............................................................................. AZ, NV (Clark Co.), So. CA .................................................... 714–246–8302

San Francisco .......................................................................... No. CA, NV, AK, HI, OR, ID, WA ........................................... 415–437–7960

Washington, DC ....................................................................... DC and Metropolitan areas of VA & MD ................................ 202–619–1900

To Report Suspected Fraud, Call or

Write

1–800–HHS-TIPS, Department of

Health and Human Services, Office of

Inspector General, P.O. Box 23489,

L’Enfant Plaza Station, Washington,

D.C. 20026–3489.

Dated: May 29, 1996.

June Gibbs Brown,

Inspector General.

[FR Doc. 96–15269 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150–04–P

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Mental Health;

Notice of Closed Meetings

Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice

is hereby given of the following

meetings of the National Institute of

Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel:

Agenda/Purpose: To review and evaluate

grant applications.

Committee Name: National Institute of

Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel.

Date: June 26, 1996.

Time: 1 p.m.

Place: Parklawn Building, Room 9C–26,

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

Contact Person: Rehana A. Chowdhury,

Parklawn Building, Room 9C–26, 5600

Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,

Telephone: 301, 443–6470.

Committee Name: National Institute of

Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel.

Date: July 8, 1996.

Time: 12 p.m.

Place: Parklawn Building, Room 9C–26,

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

Contact Person: Sheri L. Schwartzback,

Parklawn Building, Room 9C–26, 5600

Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,

Telephone: 301, 443–4843.

Committee Name: National Institute of

Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel.

Date: July 8, 1996.

Time: 12 p.m.

Place: Parklawn Building, Room 9C–26,

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

Contact Person: Jean G. Noronha, Parklawn

Building, Room 9C–26, 5600 Fishers Lane,

Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443–

6470.

Committee Name: National Institute of

Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel.

Date: July 9, 1996.

Time: 1 p.m.

Place: Parklawn Building, Room 9C–26,

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

Contact Person: Jean G. Noronha, Parklawn

Building, Room 9C–26, 5600 Fishers Lane,

Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443–

6470.

Committee Name: National Institute of

Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel.

Date: July 9, 1996.

Time: 12 p.m.

Place: Parklawn Building, Room 9C–26,

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

Contact Person: Sheri L. Schwartzback,

Parklawn Building, Room 9C–26, 5600

Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,

Telephone: 301, 443–4843.

The meetings will be closed in accordance

with the provisions set forth in secs.

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C.

Applications and/or proposals and the

discussions could reveal confidential trade

secrets or commercial property such as

patentable material and personal information

concerning individuals associated with the

applications and/or proposals, the disclosure

of which would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

This notice is being published less

than fifteen days prior to the meetings

due to the urgent need to meet timing

limitations imposed by the review and

funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Numbers 93.242, 93.281, 93.282)

Dated: June 10, 1996.

Susan K. Feldman,

Committee Management Officer, NIH.

[FR Doc. 96–15230 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration

Block Grant Allocation Processes

AGENCY: Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice and opportunity for

public comment.

SUMMARY: The Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA) allocates funding to States

and territories for the Community

Mental Health Services (CMHS) Block

Grant and the Substance Abuse

Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block

Grant. This notice describes the

formulas which the law requires be used

for distributing these funds and the

information used in making the

calculations.

This notice has five parts. Section I

provides background information on the

allocation process. Section II describes

the legislation and the formulas

applicable to the Community Mental

Health Services Block Grant. Section III

describes the legislation and the

formulas applicable to the Substance

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block

Grant. Section IV provides detailed

information on the sources of data used

in the calculations. Section V contains

technical information important in

making the actual calculations.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by August 1, 1996. Any written

comments received will be taken into
30626 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices

consideration and will become a matter

of public record.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Nancy Pearce, Office of

Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration,

Room 16–105, 5600 Fishers Lane,

Rockville, MD 20857, Fax (301) 443–

9847.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Pearce, Office of Applied

Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, Room

16–105, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville,

MD 20857, Phone (301) 443–7978, Fax

(301) 443–9847.

I. Background

The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of

1981 established a single Block Grant

for supporting alcohol, drug abuse, and

mental health services, the Alcohol,

Drug Abuse and Mental Health Services

(ADMS) Block Grant. On July 10, 1992,

the ADAMHA Reorganization Act was

signed into law, Public Law 102–321.

This Act amended the Public Health

Service Act and, among other things,

established two separate Block Grants to

replace the ADMS Block Grant. The

Community Mental Health Services

(CMHS) Block Grant supports

community mental health services; the

Substance Abuse Prevention and

Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant supports

services for the prevention and

treatment of substance abuse. Public

Law 102–321 also contains eligibility

criteria for receipt of funds under the

Grants and provides the formulas and

methods for determining States and

territorial allotments of funds under

each type of block Grant.

Under the legislation, the Secretary of

the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (DHHS), acting through

the Director of SAMHSA’s Center for

Mental Health Services and through the

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment,

determines the allotments for States and

territories for both Block Grants and

disburses federal funds to eligible States

and territories.

In July, 1995, responsibility for

calculating the amount of support each

State and territory receives in a given

fiscal year was assigned to the Office of

Applied Studies in the Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMSHA). The Center

for Substance Abuse Treatment and the

Center for Mental Health Services

manage the grants.

SAMHSA is publishing this notice to

inform the public about how block grant

allocations are calculated and provide

an opportunity for comment.

II. Legislative Requirements and

Allocation Process for Community

Mental Health Services (CMHS) Block

Grant

A. Legislative Requirements

Sections 1911 through 1920 of the

Public Health Service (PHS) Act

establish the Community Mental Health

Services (CMHS) Block Grant and rules

that must be followed in making these

grants. Section 1920(a) of the Act

authorizes the appropriation of funds

for the CMHS Block Grant; the size of

the appropriation is determined each

year by the Congress. Section 1920 of

the Act also specifies that 5 percent of

the amount appropriated in a given year

shall be used by the Department of

Health and Human Services (DHHS) to

collect data on mental health services

and patients and conduct evaluations of

programs to prevent and treat mental

health problems. The remaining 95

percent of any appropriation for the

CMHS Block Grant must be allocated to

the States and territories.

Section 1918 of the PHS Act provides

formulas for making these allocations.

Of the 95 percent of the appropriation

available for distribution 98.5 percent

must be given to the States and 1.5

percent must be distributed to the

territories.

B. State Allocations

The amount of an allotment for an

individual State is determined by three

factors: the Population at Risk, the Cost

of Services Index, and the Fiscal

Capacity Index. The Population at Risk

represents the relative risk of mental

health problems in a State. The Cost of

Services Index represents the relative

costs of providing mental health

services in a State. The Fiscal Capacity

Index represents the relative ability of a

State to pay for mental health services.

The product of these three terms

establishes the need for a given State.

Formulas for calculating Population at

Risk and the Fiscal Capacity Index are

specified in Sections 1918(a)(5) and (6)

of the PHS Act. The Cost of Services

Index formula is included by reference

and derived from a report entitled

Adjusting the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and

Mental Health Services Block Grant

Allocations for Poverty Populations and

Cost of Service, dated March 30, 1990,

prepared by Health Economics

Research.

The law requires the estimate of the

Population at Risk and the Fiscal

Capacity Index be revised each fiscal

year. The Cost of Services Index is

revised every third fiscal year. Section

1918(a)(8) of the PHS Act provides that

the first determination of the Cost of

Services Index would be made on

October 1, 1992. The same factor

remained in effect until FY 1995 when

a new Index was developed. The Index

will be recalculated for FY 1998. DHHS

is also directed by the legislation to

‘‘periodically make such refinements in

the methodology * * *’’ for the

calculation of the Cost of Services Index

as are consistent with the purpose of

this adjustment of the allotments. (See

Technical Note B, Section V.)

C. State Calculations for the Mental

Health Block Grant

The allocation for each State is

calculated using equations described

below. For the purposes of explanation,

the subscript ‘‘I’’ is used to denote an

individual State or the District of

Columbia. The symbol ‘‘Σ’’is used to

denote the summation over the 50 States

and the District of Columbia.

General Equation:

SALLOCi = 0.985*0.95*AMT*(Pi*Ci*Fi

)/

(Σ(Pi*Ci*Fi)) (1)

where:

SALLOCi = State specific allotment of the

block grant.

AMT = appropriation for mental health and

related services.

Pi = State specific Population at Risk

(calculated using Equation 2).

Ci = State specific Cost of Services Index

(calculated using Equation 3).

Fi = State specific Fiscal Capacity Index

(calculated using Equation 8).

The coefficients 0.985 and 0.95 are

specified in the legislation. The first

coefficient (0.985) represents the

proportion of the total allocable funds

available for distribution to the States

and the District of Columbia. The

second coefficient (0.95) represents the

proportion of the total appropriation

available for allocation to all

recipients—the States, the District of

Columbia, and the territories.

Equation for the State Population at Risk:

Pi = 0.107*P18–24i+0.166*P25–

44i+0.099*P45–64i+0.082*P65UPi (2)

where:

P18–24i = State specific population aged 18

to 24.

P25–44i = State specific population aged 25

to 44.

P45–64i = State specific population aged 45

to 64.

P65UPi = State specific population aged 65

and older.

The coefficients 0.107, 0.166, 0.099,

and 0.082 are specified in the

legislation. The population of each State

by age group is obtained from the

Bureau of the Census, ‘‘Resident

Population of States, by Single Year of

Age,’’ using the most current data

available as of October 1 of each year.

Equation for the Cost of Services Index:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices 30627

Ci = 0.9 if 0.75*Wi+0.15*Ri+0.10*Si < 0.9

(3)

1.1 if 0.75*Wi+0.15*Ri+0.10*Si > 1.1 Ci =

0.75*Wi+0.15*Ri+0.10*Si otherwise

where:

Wi = State specific wage subindex (calculated

using Equation 4).

Ri = State specific rent subindex (calculated

using Equation 5).

Si = State specific supplies subindex.

The coefficients 0.75, 0.15, and 0.10

are specified in the report cited by the

legislation, as is Si, which is equal to 1

for all States and the District of

Columbia. The boundary values of 0.9

and 1.1 are specified in the legislation.

Equation for State Specific Wage Subindex:

Wi = AVGSTHWi/AVGUSHW (4)

where:

AVGSTHWi = average State specific hourly

manufacturing wage including overtime.

AVGUSHW = average U.S. hourly

manufacturing wage including overtime.

The State and national wage data are

obtained from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Current Employment

Statistics Survey, ‘‘Employment, Hours

and Earnings,’’ using the most current

data available as of October 1 of each

year.

Equation for State Specific Rent Subindex:

Ri = AVGSTRTi/AVGUSRT (5)

where:

AVGSTRTi = weighted average State specific

rent (calculated using Equation 6).

AVGUSRT = weighted average U.S. rent

(calculated using Equation 7).

Equation for Weighted Average State Specific

Rent:

AVGSTRTi = (ΣPOPij*RENTij)/(ΣPOPij)

(6)

where:

POPij = population of jth subarea of the State.

RENTij = fair market rent of 4-bedroom

dwelling in jth subarea of the State.

Each State is subdivided into ‘‘J’’

mutually exclusive subareas that cover

the State. If the State is not a New

England State, population source data

PSOURCEij (obtained at the State,

county, subdivision and place levels

from the Bureau of the Census, ‘‘Census

of Population and Housing’’), and rent

source data RTSOURCEij (obtained at

the State, county, and SMSA levels from

the Department of Housing and Urban

Development, ‘‘Fair Market Rents...’’)

are used to calculate POPij and RENTij

on a county-level basis (after addition of

population of ‘‘independent cities’’ for

HI, MD, MO, MT, and VA). If State I is

a New England State, SMSA codes

(obtained from the Office of

Management and Budget, ‘‘Revised

Statistical Definitions of Metropolitan

Areas (MAs) and Guidance on Uses of

MA Definitions’’) are matched to county

subdivisions; the non-SMSA balances of

county populations (using data obtained

from the Bureau of the Census, ‘‘Nonmetropolitan New England County

Names and Codes’’) are determined;

POPij and RENTij are calculated on a

township-level basis by assigning

groups of FIPS codes (obtained from the

Department of Commerce, ‘‘FIPS

Publications’’) to SMSAs; and POPij and

RENTij are matched and merged.

Equation for the Weighted Average of the

U.S. Rent:

AVGUSRT = (ΣΣPOPij*RENTij)/(ΣΣPOPij)

(7)

Equation for State Specific Fiscal Capacity

Index:

Fi = maximum of 0.4 and 1-(0.35*((AVGTTRi/

Ci)/(ΣAVGTTRi/Ci))/(Pi/ΣPi)), if specific

State variable is a State, otherwise; 1-

(0.35*((AVGTPIi/Ci)/(ΣAVGTPIi/Ci))/(Pi/

ΣPi)) if the State variable is DC (8)

where:

AVGTTRi = State specific 3-year average

Total Taxable Resources (calculated

using Equation 9).

AVGTPIi = State specific 3-year average Total

Personal Income (calculated using

Equation 10).

The boundary value of 0.4, constant of

1, and coefficient of 0.35 are specified

in the legislation.

Equation for State Specific 3-Year Average

Total Taxable Resources:

AVGTTRi = (TTR1i+TTR2i+TTR3i)/3 (9)

where:

TTR1i, TTR2i and TTR3i = State specific

Total Taxable Resources, 3 most recent

years.

The total taxable resources by State

data are obtained from the Department

of the Treasury, ‘‘Total Taxable

Resources by State, and are updated

annually for all three years used in the

calculations.

Equation for State Specific 3-Year Average

Total Personal Income:

AVGTPIi = (TPI1i+TPI2i+TPI3i)/3 (10)

where:

TPI1i, TPI2i and TPI3i = State specific Total

Personal Income, 3 most recent years.

The total personal income by State data are

obtained from the Department of

Commerce, Survey of Current Business,

and are updated annually for all three

years used in the calculations.

D. Territory Allocations

The amount of an allotment for an

individual territory is determined by

multiplying the appropriation amount

for allotment to all territories by the

ratio of civilian population for an

individual territory to the civilian

population of all territories. (See

Technical Note C, Section V.) Section

1918 of the PHS Act states that no

territory shall receive less than a

minimum allotment of $50,000 each

fiscal year.

E. Territory Calculations for Mental

Health Block Grant

The allocation for each territory is

calculated using the equation described

below. For the purposes of explanation,

the subscript ‘‘I’’ is used to denote an

individual territory, and the symbol ‘‘Σ’’

is used to denote the summation over all

territories.

TALLOCi=maximum of $50,000 and

0.015*0.95*AMT*PCCIVILi/ΣPCCIVILi

(11)

where:

PCCIVILi=Civilian population per most

recent decennial census for Territory I.

The coefficients 0.015 and 0.95 are

specified in the legislation. They

represent the proportion (0.015) of the

total allocable funds to be distributed

among the territories and the proportion

(0.95) of the total appropriation to be

allocated among the States, DC and the

territories. The appropriation amount is

established by Congress. The civilian

population data is obtained from the

Bureau of the Census, ‘‘Estimates of

Resident Population of States, by Age.’’

If the Secretary determines that recent

data on the civilian population of a

territory are not available for a fiscal

year, the law authorizes DHHS to

estimate the population for the territory

by modifying the most recent data to

reflect the average extent of change

occurring during the period in the

population of all territories for which

recent data do exist. (See Technical

Note C, Section V.) The boundary of

$50,000 is specified in the legislation.

III. Legislative Requirements and

Allocation Process for Substance Abuse

Prevention and Treatment (SAPT)

Block Grant

A. Legislative Requirements

Sections 1921 through 1935 of the

Public Health Service (PHS) Act

establish the SAPT Block Grant and the

rules that must be followed in making

these grants. Section 1935(a) of the Act

authorizes the appropriation of funds

for the substance abuse block grant. The

size of the appropriation is determined

each year by the Congress. Section

1935(b) of the Act requires that 5

percent of the appropriated amount in a

given year shall be used by DHHS for

data collection to determine the

incidence and prevalence of substance

abuse and for technical assistance and

program evaluations relevant to

substance abuse treatment and

prevention. The remaining 95 percent of

the appropriation must be allocated

among the States and territories.

Section 1933 of the PHS Act provides

a formula for this allocation. The law
30628 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices

specifies that 98.5 percent of the total

allocation available for distribution

must be given to the States. The

remaining 1.5 percent of the total must

be distributed to the territories.

The law also provides for a direct

federal allotment for Indian tribes or

tribal organizations that meet certain

requirements. For any tribe eligible to

receive a direct allotment (See

Technical Note E, Section V.), the tribe’s

share of the relevant State’s share is the

ratio of the tribe’s FY 1991 allotment to

that portion of the State allotment

actually spent on the authorized

activities.

B. State Allocations

The amount of an allotment for a

specific State is determined by three

factors: the Population at Risk, the Cost

of Services Index, and the Fiscal

Capacity Index. The Population at Risk

represents the relative risk of substance

abuse problems in a State. The Cost of

Services Index represents the relative

costs of providing substance abuse

prevention and treatment services in a

State. The Fiscal Capacity Index

represents the relative ability of the

State to pay for substance abuse related

services. The product of these three

terms establishes the need for a given

State.

Formulas for calculating Population at

Risk and the Fiscal Capacity Index are

specified in legislation. The Cost-ofServices Index formula is not contained

in the legislation, but is defined as a

factor ‘‘determined according to the

methodology presented in the report

entitled Adjusting the Alcohol, Drug

Abuse and Mental Health Services Block

Grant Allocations for Poverty

Populations and Cost of Service,’’ dated

March 30, 1990, prepared by Health

Economics Research.

The law requires the estimates of the

Population at Risk and the Fiscal

Capacity Index be revised each fiscal

year. The Cost of Services Index is

revised every third fiscal year. Section

1918(a)(8) of the PHS Act provides that

the first determination of the Cost of

Services Index be made on October 1,

1992. The same factor remained in effect

until FY 1995 when a new Index was

developed. The Index will be

recalculated for FY 1998. DHHS is also

directed by the legislation to ‘‘* * *

periodically make such refinements in

the methodology * * *’’ for the

calculation of the Cost of Services Index

as are consistent with the purpose of

this adjustment of the allotments. (See

Technical Note B, Section V.)

C. State Calculations for the Substance

Abuse Block Grant

The allocation for each State is

calculated using equations described

below. For the purposes of explanation,

the subscript ‘‘I’’ is used to denote an

individual State or the District of

Columbia, and the symbol ‘‘Σ’’ is used

to denote the summation over the 50

States and the District of Columbia.

General Equation:

SALLOCi=0.985*0.95*AMT*(Pi*Ci*Fi)/

(Σ(Pi*Ci*Fi)) (12)

where:

SALLOCi=State specific allotment of the

block grant.

AMT=appropriation for substance abuse and

related services.

Pi=State specific Population at Risk Index

(calculated using Equation 13).

Ci=State specific Cost of Services Index

(calculated using Equation 15).

Fi=State specific Fiscal Capacity Index

(calculated using Equation 20).

The coefficients 0.985 and 0.95 are

specified in the law. The first coefficient

(0.985) represents the proportion of the

total allocable funds available for

distribution to the States and the

District of Columbia. The second

coefficient (0.95) represents the

proportion of the total appropriation

available for allocation to all

recipients—the States, the District of

Columbia, and the territories.

Equation for the State Population at Risk:

Pi=0.5*(P18–24i+UP18–24i)/(Σ(P18–

24i+UP18–24i))+0.5*(P25–64i/ΣP25–64i)

(13)

where:

P18–24i=State specific population aged 18 to

24.

UP18–24i=State specific urban population

aged 18 to 24 (calculated using Equation

14).

P25–64i=State specific population aged 25 to

64.

The coefficients 0.5 are specified in

the legislation. The State population by

age group is obtained from the Bureau

of the Census, ‘‘Resident Population of

States, by Single Year of Age,’’ using the

most current data available as of

October 1 of each year.

Equation for the State Specific Urban

Population:

UP18–24i=P18–24i*UPC18–24i/PC18–24i

(14)

where:

UPC18–24i=State specific urban population

aged 18 to 24 (per most recent decennial

census).

PC18–24i=State specific population aged 18

to 24 (per most recent decennial census).

Both sets of decennial census-based

population data are obtained from the

Bureau of the Census, Census of

Population and Housing, 1990:

Summary Tape File 1C. (See Technical

Note D, Section V.)

Equation for the Cost of Services Index:

Ci=0.9 if 0.75*Wi+0.15*Ri+0.10*Si<0.9

(15)

1.1 if 0.75*Wi+0.15*Ri+0.10*Si>1.1

Ci=0.75*Wi+0.15*Ri+0.10*Si otherwise.

where:

Wi=State specific wage subindex (calculated

using Equation 16).

Ri=State specific rent subindex (calculated

using Equation 17).

Si=State specific supplies subindex.

The coefficients 0.75, 0.15, and 0.10

are specified in the article cited by the

legislation, as is Si, which is equal to 1

for all States and the District of

Columbia. The boundary values of 0.9

and 1.1 are specified in the legislation.

Equation for State Specific Wage Subindex:

Wi=AVGSTHWi/AVGUSHW (16)

where:

AVGSTHWi=average State specific hourly

manufacturing wage including overtime.

AVGUSHW=average U.S. hourly

manufacturing wage including overtime.

The State and national wage data are

obtained from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Current Employment

Statistics Survey, ‘‘Employment, Hours

and Earnings,’’ using the most current

data available as of October 1 of each

year.

Equation for Weighted Average State Specific

Rent Subindex:

Ri=AVGSTRTi/AVGUSRT (17)

where:

AVGSTRTi=weighted average State specific

rent (calculated using Equation 18).

AVGUSRT=weighted average U.S. rent

(calculated using Equation 19).

Equation for Weighted Average State Specific

Rent:

AVGSTRTi=(ΣPOPij*RENTij)/(ΣPOPij) (18)

where:

POPij=population of jth subarea of State I.

RENTij=fair market rent of 4-bedroom

dwelling in jth subarea of State I.

Each State is subdivided into ‘‘J’’

mutually exclusive subareas that cover

the State. If State I is not a New England

State, population source data

PSOURCEij (obtained at the State,

county, subdivision and place levels

from the Bureau of the Census, ‘‘Census

of Population and Housing’’), and rent

source data RTSOURCEij (obtained at

the State, county, and SMSA levels from

the Department of Housing and Urban

Development, ‘‘Fair Market Rents

* * *’’) are used to calculate POPij and

RENTij on a county-level basis (after

addition of population of ‘‘independent

cities’’ for HI, MD, MO, MT, and VA).

If State I is a New England State, SMSA

codes (obtained from the Office of

Management and Budget, ‘‘Revised

Statistical Definitions of Metropolitan
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices 30629

Areas (MAs) and Guidance on Uses of

MA Definitions’’) are matched to county

subdivisions; the non-SMSA balances of

county populations (using data obtained

from the Bureau of the Census, ‘‘Nonmetropolitan New England County

Names and Codes’’) are determined;

POPij and RENTij are calculated on a

township-level basis by assigning

groups of FIPS codes (obtained from the

Department of Commerce, ‘‘FIPS

Publications’’) to SMSAs; and POPij and

RENTij are matched and merged.

Equation for Weighted Average of the U.S.

Rent:

AVGUSRT=(ΣΣPOPij*RENTij)/(ΣΣPOPij)

(19)

Equation for State Specific Fiscal Capacity

Index:

Fi=maximum of 0.4 and 1–(0.35*((AVGTTRi/

Ci)/(ΣAVGTTRi/Ci))/(Pi/ΣPi)), if specific

State is a State, otherwise 1–

(0.35*((AVGTPIi/Ci)/(ΣAVGTPIi/Ci))/(Pi/

ΣPi)) if the State variable is DC (20)

where:

AVGTTRi=State specific 3-year average Total

Taxable Resources (calculated using

Equation 21).

AVGTPIi=State specific 3-year average Total

Personal Income (calculated using

Equation 22).

The boundary value of 0.4, constant of

1, and coefficient of 0.35 are specified

in the legislation.

Equation for State Specific 3-Year Average

Total Taxable Resources:

AVGTTRi=(TTR1i+TTR2i+TTR3i)/3 (21)

where:

TTR1i, TTR2i and TTR3i=State specific Total

Taxable Resources, 3 most recent years.

The total taxable resources by State

data are obtained from the Department

of the Treasury, ‘‘Total Taxable

Resource by State,’’ and are updated

annually for all three years used in the

calculations.

Equation for State Specific 3-Year Average

Total Personal Income:

AVGTPIi=(TPI1i+TPI2i+TPI3i)/3 (22)

where:

TPI1i, TPI2i and TPI3i=State specific Total

Personal Income, 3 most recent years.

The total personal income by State

data are obtained from the Department

of Commerce, ‘‘Survey of Current

Business,’’ and are updated annually for

all three years used in the calculations.

D. Territory Allocations

The amount of an allotment for an

individual territory is determined by

multiplying the appropriation amount

for allotment to all territories by the

ratio of civilian population for an

individual territory to the civilian

population of all territories. (See

Technical Note C, Section V.) Section

1933 of the PHS Act specifies that no

territory shall receive less than a

minimum allotment of $50,000 each

fiscal year.

E. Territory Calculations for Substance

Abuse Block Grant

The allocation for each territory is

calculated using the equation described

below. For the purposes of explanation,

the subscript ‘‘I’’ is used to denote an

individual territory, and the symbol ‘‘è’’

is used to denote the summation over all

territories.

TALLOCi=maximum of $50,000 and

0.015*0.95*AMT*PCCIVILi/èPCCIVILi

(23)

where:

PCCIVILi=Civilian population per most

recent decennial census for Territory I.

The coefficients 0.015 and 0.95 are

specified in the legislation. The first

coefficient (0.015) represents the

proportion of the total allocable funds to

be distributed among the territories. The

second coefficient (0.95) represent the

proportion of the total appropriation to

be allocated among the States, DC and

the territories. The Congress establishes

the level of the appropriation each fiscal

year. The civilian population data is

obtained from the Bureau of the Census,

‘‘Estimates of Resident Population of

States, by Age.’’ If the Secretary

determines that recent data on the

civilian population of a territory are not

available for a fiscal year, the law

authorizes DHHS to estimate the

population for the territory by

modifying the most recent data to reflect

the average extent of change occurring

during the period in the population of

all territories for which recent data do

exist. (See Technical Note C, Section V.)

The boundary of $50,000 is specified in

the legislation.

F. Allocations to Indian Tribes and

Tribal Organizations

The Red Lake Band of the Chippewa

Indians in Minnesota receives a direct

allocation, as provided under Section

1933(d) of the PHS Act. (See Technical

Note E, Section V.) Therefore, the

substance abuse block grant allocation

for the State of Minnesota is

apportioned between the Red Lake Band

of Chippewas and the remainder of the

State as provided in the law and

described in the following equations.

Equation for Allotment of Funds to the Red

Lake Indians:

RLIALLOC=SALLOCMN*0.0240535 (24)

where:

RLIALLOC=allotment for Red Lake Indians.

SALLOCMN=Minnesota State allotment

(calculated using Equation 12).

The coefficient 0.0240535 reflects FY

1991 funding, as specified by Section

1933(d) of the PHS Act.

Equation for the Allotment for the Remainder

of Minnesota:

MNRALLOC=SALLOCMN-RLIALLOC (25)

where:

MNRALLOC=allotment for the remainder of

Minnesota.

IV. Data Elements and Sources

The following table presents a list of

data elements used in the allocation

formulas. It identifies the agency that

develops the data, the frequency with

which that source agency updates the

data, and includes some technical notes

about the data as they are used in the

allocation formulas. The table also

shows the years of the data used in the

FY 1996 allocations.

Data element and update

frequency by source agency Data source Notes

Total Taxable Resources

(TTR), by State—Annual.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Economic

Policy. Unpublished data, dated August 24, 1994.

1. Calculations are made specifically for these block

grants, and provided to SAMHSA on diskette.

2. Annual estimates include revision of estimates for

the two prior years. Therefore, all three years of data

are replaced each year.

3. The data used in the calculations consist of the

source data as received truncated to three significant

decimal places

4. FY 1996 allocations use 3-year average of data for

1991, 1992, 1993.

5. Used in Fiscal Capacity Index.
30630 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices

Data element and update

frequency by source agency Data source Notes

Total Personal Income (TPI),

by State—Annual.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic

Analysis. Survey of Current Business: Press release

BEA 94–36 dated August 23, 1994, Table 3—Total

Personal Income, by State and Region, 1989–93.

1. Final estimates are typically published in August, including revision of estimates for the two prior years.

Therefore, all three years of data are replaced each

year.

2. FY 1996 allocations use 3-year average of data for

1991, 1992, 1993.

3. Used in Fiscal Capacity Index.

Estimates of Resident Population of States, by Age—

Annual.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Unpublished estimates by the Population Division,

Population Distribution Branch.

1. The only Bureau of the Census release of population

estimates by single year of age (needed to create

age groupings for population at risk in each block

grant) is in early March for July 1 of the previous

year. Data for July 1, 1993 were only released on

diskette by the Population Distribution Branch, Population Division, 301–457–2385. Cost is $20. Data for

subsequent years are available on the Internet; estimates on the Internet are those for the most recent

year available.

2. FY 1996 allocations use estimates for July 1, 1993.

3. Used to determine Population at Risk.

Population age 18–24 and

18–24 living in urbanized

areas, by State—Decennial.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary

Tape File 1C.

1. Urbanized population is used only in the substance

abuse block grant.

2. The Bureau of the Census does not make intercensal estimates of the urbanized population. Therefore, data from the 1990 census are used until data

from the 2000 census are available.

3. Used to determine Population at Risk.

Population by county—Decennial.U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary

Tape File 1C.

1. County population is used in conjunction with Fair

Market Rent in the Cost of Services Index.

2. In order to have population data for the specific geographic area configurations used in the FMR files, it

is necessary to use data available only from the decennial census. 1990 data were used for FY 1996 allocations.

3. Used in Cost of Services Index

Civilian population of the

U.S. territories—Varies.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,

Population Division. 1990 data released in press releases, as follows: American Samoa, CB 91–242 (7/

24/91); Guam, CB 91–276 (9/13/91); Northern Mariana Islands, CB 91–243 (7/24/91); Palau, CB 91–244

(7/24/91); Puerto Rico CB 91–275 (9/13/91); Virgin

Islands CB 91–263 (8/23/91).

1. Each press release also included data for 1980, except for Puerto Rico. 1980 data for Puerto Rico are

from report PC 80–1–A53, Table 2, page 53–10 (12/

84).

2. The Bureau of the Census no longer collects data

for the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. See Technical Note C

in Section V.

3. Inter-censal estimates are made only for Puerto

Rico.

Average hourly manufacturing wage, by State—Annual.U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Current Employment Statistics Survey, ‘‘Employment

and Earnings,’’ May 1994. Table 2, p. 162—

(Annualized) Average Hourly Earnings, by State,

1993.

1. Data include overtime.

2. FY 1996 allocations use 1993 data.

3. Used in Cost of Services Index.

U.S. average manufacturing

wage—Annual.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Current Employment Statistics Survey, ‘‘Employment

and Earnings,’’ May 1994. Table B–2, p. 52—National (Annualized) Average Hourly Earnings for 1993.

1. Data include overtime.

2. FY 1996 allocation uses data for 1993.

3. Used in Cost of Services Index.

Four Bedroom Fair Market

Rent (FMR)—Annual.

‘‘Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program;

Fair Market Rent Schedules for Use in the Rental

Certificate Program, Loan Management and Property

Disposition Programs; Moderate Rehabilitation Program and Rental Voucher Program (24 CFR Part

888) issued by the Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Office of the Secretary. FEDERAL REGISTER, September 28, 1994, Part IV; Vol 59,

No. 187, pp. 49494–49553..

1. HUD is required by law to establish FMRs annually

and to publish proposed and final FMR’s in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices 30631

Data element and update

frequency by source agency Data source Notes

2. The typical cycle is a Notice of Proposed Rule Making published in late April or early May, with the Final

Rule published in the last two weeks of September

for an October 1 effective date.

3. Used in Cost of Services Index.

Metropolitan Area Definitions

for FMR—Annual, at a

minimum.

‘‘Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program;

Fair Market Rent Schedules for Use in the Rental

Certificate Program, Loan Management and Property

Disposition Programs; Moderate Rehabilitation Program and Rental Voucher Program (24 CFR Part

888) issued by the Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Office of the Secretary. FEDERAL REGISTER, April 6, 1994, Part XII, Vol 59, No.

66, pp. 16408–16484.

1. The FEDERAL REGISTER notice fully documents how

‘‘housing market areas’’ are defined and how Metropolitan Area definitions are used. For non-metropolitan areas, counties are used. In New England, town

definitions are used.

2. Used in Cost of Services Index

V. Technical Notes

A. Establishment of Cutoff Date for

‘‘Most Recent Data’’

The legislation for both block grants

refers to use of the most recent available

data in calculating the allotments for

each State and territory. Section

1918(a)(5)(B) states that ‘‘With respect to

data on population that is necessary for

purposes of making a determination

under subparagraph (A), the Secretary

shall use the most recent data that is

available from the Secretary of

Commerce pursuant to the decennial

census and pursuant to reasonable

estimates by such Secretary of changes

occurring in the data in the ensuing

period.’’ Section 1918(a)(6)(B)(I)

requires use of ‘‘the most recent 3-year

arithmetic mean of the total taxable

resources of the State, as determined by

the Secretary of the Treasury.’’ Section

1918(a)(6)(D)(ii) requires ‘‘the most

recent 3-year arithmetic mean of total

personal income in such District [the

District of Columbia], as determined by

the Secretary of Commerce.’’

When the legislation for the two block

grants was first implemented, SAMHSA

staff tried to update population and

other data whenever new estimates of

the block grant allotments were

required. This caused considerable

confusion because projections of

specific State allotments under the two

Block Grant programs were changing

constantly. Specific State allotment

projections for various appropriation

levels must be provided to Congress

early in the budget consideration

process; and changing estimates

complicate the decision making process.

Given the time constraints and the

need for consistent estimates for the

budget process, SAMHSA now bases all

calculations on the latest data available

by the beginning of each fiscal year

(October 1). For example, allotments for

FY 1997, determined during FY 1996,

employ those data available as of

October 1, 1995. This approach was

adopted for all allotment determinations

beginning with those for FY 1996.

Congress was notified of the change in

approach in February, 1995.

B. Wage Data Set for Cost of Services

Index

The Cost of Services Index is

discussed on page 13 of the report cited

in Section 1918(a)(8)(B) of the Act.

According to that report ‘‘* * * the

ideal cost-of-service measure would be

data on the cost of providing a standard

set of substance abuse and mental

health services in each State.’’ The

report also notes such data are not

available. The report reviews several

potential sources of wage data, and

proposes the use of non-manufacturing

wage data from the decennial Census of

Population and Housing. At the time of

the 1990 report, the only census

information available was 1980. Those

data referred to earnings in 1979. A

copy of the unpublished report is

available on request from the

‘Information Contact’ listed at the

beginning of this notice.

When SAMHSA began to assemble

information to make the first block grant

allotment computations, the nonmanufacturing wages data from the 1990

census were not yet available and the

1979 data were out-of-date. After

consultation with the Comptroller

General, as required by the PHS Act,

SAMSHA decided to use manufacturing

wage data collected annually by the

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) through

the Current Employment Statistics

Program for developing estimates for the

Cost of Services Index.

There are several advantages to using

manufacturing wage data. (1)

Timeliness. The BLS data are collected

continuously on a monthly basis. In

contrast, the most recent nonmanufacturing data were collected in

1989 during the decennial census and

are not subject to post-census updates in

the years between censuses. (2)

Reliability. Hours and earnings

manufacturing data are based on the

actual records of gross payrolls and

corresponding paid hours of

employment maintained by economic

establishments for a variety of tax and

accounting purposes. Nonmanufacturing decennial census data

are based on individual self-report. (3)

Scope. Manufacturing wage data are

collected on a monthly basis from a

large sample of manufacturing

establishments from which valid

estimates of wages at the State level can

be made. According to the BLS ‘‘Manual

on Series Available and Estimating

Methods, Current Employment Statistics

Program, March 1994,’’ published in

March 1995, the sample contains over

61,000 manufacturing establishments.

Non-manufacturing data are collected

from a 1-in-6 sample of households in

the decennial census, only a portion of

which report non-manufacturing wage

data. (4) Suitability. Because the

sampling point for the BLS Current

Employment Statistics Program is the

economic establishment, i.e., the point

at which economic activity is generated,

the resulting manufacturing wage data

are better suited to providing

information on the geographic

distribution of employment and its

impact on the demand for labor as

measured by wage rates.

BLS collects its data from a survey

conducted in cooperation with State

Employment Security Agencies, which

obtain the data from a sample of

employers who are able to report the

actual weekly wage data from their

records of payments. By contrast, the

household survey method used in the

decennial census to obtain nonmanufacturing wage data places primary

emphasis on the employment status of

individuals and other demographic
30632 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices

characteristics of the labor force. To

obtain its estimates, Census divides the

total annual income due to wages

reported by households by 52 to derive

a weekly figure. The data are then

divided by the reported number of

hours worked during the census week to

derive a wage value. The resulting

estimate is not precise. Therefore, the

BLS manufacturing wage data are used

in computing the allotments under the

block grants. The appropriate

Congressional committees were

informed of this approach.

C. Population Estimates for Territories

For both the mental health and the

substance abuse block grants the law

provides that the Secretary shall

estimate the civilian population of a

territory current if data on the civilian

population of the territory does not

exist. These estimates are developed by

modifying the population estimates for

the territories for which recent data do

not exist by the average increase or

decrease in the population of all

territories for which there are recent

data.

Data are available from the 1990

census for American Samoa, Guam, the

Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto

Rico and the Virgin Islands. For the

Federated States of Micronesia and the

Republic of the Marshall Islands the

latest data on population are from 1980.

The Census Bureau no longer has

responsibility for collecting data from

these two territories, which signed

Compacts of Free Association with the

United States in 1988. The 1990

population estimates for the Federated

States of Micronesia and the Republic of

the Marshall Islands were derived by

applying the average percent change

between 1980 and 1990 for the other

territories to their 1980 populations.

This determination was made as

follows:

TERRITORY POPULATIONS FOR WHICH THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS—COLLECTED DATA IN 1980 AND 1990 AND

PERCENT CHANGE 1980–1990

Territory 1980 Population

1990 PopulationPercent

change

American Samoa ...................................................................................................................................... 32,297 46,773 +44.8

Guam ........................................................................................................................................................ 105,979 133,152 +25.6

Northern Mariana Islands ......................................................................................................................... 16,780 43,345 +158.3

Palau ........................................................................................................................................................ 12,116 15,122 +24.8

Puerto Rico ............................................................................................................................................... 3,196,520 3,522,037 +10.2

Virgin Islands ............................................................................................................................................ 96,569 101,809 +5.4

Average Increase .......................................................................................................................... .................... .................... +44.9

1990 ESTIMATED POPULATIONS OF TERRITORIES FOR WHICH THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS NO LONGER COLLECTS DATA

Territory 1980 Population as enumerated

1990 Estimated population (using 44.9 percent average territory

population increase from

above table)

Federated States of Micronesia ............................................................................................... 73,087 105,903

Republic of the Marshall Islands .............................................................................................. 30,873 44,735

The Bureau of the Census has made

post-1990 decennial census estimates

only for Puerto Rico. With post-1990

estimates available only for Puerto Rico,

the only way to adjust the population

estimates for the other territories is to

assume that the percentage change in

the population of each is similar to the

percentage change in Puerto Rico. Since

the distribution of funding for each

territory is proportional to its

contribution to the total population of

the territories, any adjustment based

only on the change for Puerto Rico

would not alter the allocation of funds.

Therefore, the territory population data

and estimates for 1990 continue to be

used for allocation purposes.

D. Population in Urbanized Areas for

Substance Abuse Block Grant

The formula for the SAPT block grant

adjusts for the population at risk for

substance abuse using the State

population between 18–24 years of age

living in urbanized areas and the total

U.S. population between 18–24 years

living in urbanized areas. The Bureau of

the Census does not make inter-censal

estimates of the population living in

urbanized areas. Therefore, the

estimates of this population group are

derived from the 1990 census.

E. Indian Tribes Receiving Direct

Allotments Under the Substance Abuse

Block Grant

Section 1933(d) of the Act provides

for separate grants for substance abuse

prevention and treatment to Indian

tribes or tribal organizations. Several

categorical grant programs for which a

number of tribes had been direct

recipients were folded into the former

ADMS block grant when it was

established in 1981. The Red Lake Band

of the Chippewa Indians in Minnesota

was the only tribe or tribal organization

still receiving ADMS block grant funds

at the time the SAPT Block Grant was

established in 1992 and is therefore the

only Indian tribe currently eligible for

direct receipt of funds. This group

continues to receive a direct allotment

under the SAPT Block Grant. The

funding level for the Red Lake Indians,

as determined by SAMSHA based on FY

1991 funding levels, is 0.0240535 of the

total amount of the Minnesota annual

allocation.

Dated: June 7, 1996.

Richard Kopanda,

Executive Officer, SAMHSA.

[FR Doc. 96–15010 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4162–20–P