Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Notices 70905

FY2001 § 319 GRANT ALLOCATIONS—Continued

Base Increment Total

NEW MEXICO ......................................................................................................................................... 1,615.3 1,223.7 2,839.0

OKLAHOMA ............................................................................................................................................. 2,091.0 1,584.1 3,675.1

TEXAS ..................................................................................................................................................... 6,267.8 4,748.4 11,016.2

REGION 7 10,929.6 8,280.1 19,209.7

IOWA ....................................................................................................................................................... 3,023.5 2,290.6 5,314.1

KANSAS .................................................................................................................................................. 2,442.4 1,850.3 4,292.7

MISSOURI ............................................................................................................................................... 3,055.1 2,314.5 5,369.6

NEBRASKA ............................................................................................................................................. 2,408.6 1,824.7 4,233.3

REGION 8 11,280.2 8,545.6 19,825.8

COLORADO ............................................................................................................................................ 1,672.1 1,266.7 2,938.8

MONTANA ............................................................................................................................................... 1,749.8 1,325.6 3,075.4

N. DAKOTA ............................................................................................................................................. 3,192.3 2,418.4 5,610.7

S. DAKOTA .............................................................................................................................................. 2,162.9 1,638.6 3,801.5

UTAH ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,214.0 919.7 2,133.7

WYOMING ............................................................................................................................................... 1,289.1 976.6 2,265.7

REGION 9 12,436.3 9,421.5 21,857.8

ARIZONA ................................................................................................................................................. 2,170.7 1,644.5 3,815.2

CALIFORNIA ........................................................................................................................................... 7,051.6 5,342.0 12,393.6

HAWAII .................................................................................................................................................... 1,019.9 772.7 1,792.6

NEVADA .................................................................................................................................................. 1,124.3 851.7 1,976.0

TRUST TER. ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0

AM. SAMOA ............................................................................................................................................ 356.6 270.2 626.8

GUAM ...................................................................................................................................................... 356.6 270.2 626.8

MARIANAS .............................................................................................................................................. 356.6 270.2 626.8

REGION 10 7,611.9 5,766.6 13,378.5

ALASKA ................................................................................................................................................... 1,609.5 1,219.3 2,828.8

IDAHO ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,633.0 1,237.1 2,870.1

OREGON ................................................................................................................................................. 1,831.4 1,387.4 3,218.8

WASHINGTON ........................................................................................................................................ 2,538.0 1,922.8 4,460.8

TOTAL to States ............................................................................................................................... 132,000.0 100,000.0 232,000.0

Tribal ........................................................................................................................................................ 6,000.0 .................... 6,000.0

GRAND TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 138,000.0 100,000.0 238,000.0

[FR Doc. 00–30279 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and

Families

Proposed Information Collection

Activity; Comment Request

Proposed Projects

Title: Child Care Case-Level Report.

OMB No.: 0970–0167.

Description: Section 658K of the Child

Care and Development Block Grant Act

of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–508, 42 U.S.C.

9858) requires that States and

Territories submit monthly case-level

data on the children and families

receiving direct services under the Child

Care and Development Fund. The

implementing regulations for the

statutorily required reporting are at 45

CFR 98.70. Case-level reports, submitted

quarterly or monthly (at grantee option)

include monthly sample or full

population case-level data. The data

elements to be included in these reports

are represented in the ACF–801.

Disagregate data is used to determine

program and participant characteristics

as well as costs and levels of child care

services provided. This provides ACF

with the information necessary to make

reports to Congress, address national

child care needs, offer technical

assistance to grantees, meet performance

measures, and conduct research.

Consistent with the statute and

regulations, ACF requests extension of

the ACF–801.

Respondents: States, the District of

Columbia, and Territories including

Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands,

American Samoa, and the Northern

Marianna Islands.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Instrument Number of

Respondents

Number of

Responses

per

Respondent

Average

Burden

Hours per

Response

Total

Burden

Hours

ACF–801 ................................................................................................................ 56 4 20 4,480

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours ........................................................... .............................. .................... .................... 4,480

In compliance with the requirements

of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

Administration for Children and

Families is soliciting public comment

on the specific aspects of the

70906 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Notices

information collection described above.

Copies of the proposed collection of

information can be obtained and

comments may be forwarded by writing

to the Administration for Children and

Families, Office of Information Services,

370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20447, Attn: ACF

Reports Clearance Officer. All requests

should be identified by the title of the

information collection.

The Department specifically requests

comments one: (a) Whether the

proposed collection of information is

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)

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.

Consideration will be given to

comments and suggestions submitted

within 60 days of this publication.

Dated: November 22, 2000.

Bob Sargis,

Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–30260 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6909–1]

Science Advisory Board; Notification

of Public Advisory Committee Meeting

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that the Radiation

Advisory Committee (RAC) of the

USEPA Science Advisory Board (SAB),

will meet December 12–14, 2000 in

conference room 6013, USEPA, Ariel

Rios Building North, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.

The meeting will begin by 9:00 a.m. on

December 12 and adjourn no later than

2:30 p.m. on December 14. All times

noted are Eastern Standard Time. The

meeting is open to the public; however,

seating is limited and available on a first

come basis. Important Notice:

Documents that are the subject of SAB

reviews are normally available from the

originating EPA office and are not

available from the SAB Office—

information concerning availability of

documents from the relevant Program

Office is included below.

Purpose of the Meeting—During this

meeting, the RAC intends to draft its

review on the Draft Sewage Sludge Dose

Modeling Report jointly issued by the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) prepared as

part of the Sewage Sludge

Subcommittee of Interagency Steering

Committee on Radiation Standards

(ISCORS). The Draft Sewage Sludge

Dose Modeling report will assess

potential radiation dose from various

sewage sludge handling and end/use

disposal practices. The estimates will be

included in the final Guidance

Document to help publicly owned

treatment work (POTW) operators better

understand and interpret radionuclide

data associated with sewage sludge. The

charge questions to be answered,

include, but are not limited to the

following:

(1) Are the dose modeling scenarios

reasonable? Does the document

adequately explain them?

(2) Are the scenarios sufficiently

representative of the major exposure

situations?

(3) Are the approaches to obtaining

the modeling parameters and

distributions scientifically defensible? Is

the methodology’s approach for

characterizing uncertainty appropriate?

Further, the RAC will be conducting

a planning session for their Spring 2001

review of the Multi-Agency Radiological

Laboratory Protocols (MARLAP)

Manual.

Follow-up Teleconference Meeting—If

additional questions arise following the

meeting that concern the development

of the RAC’s report on the Draft Sewage

Sludge Dose Modeling Report that need

clarification or additional discussion,

the Committee will address these in a

public teleconference meeting that is

planned for Wednesday, January 17,

2001, from 12:00–2:00 pm. That

meeting, if held, will be hosted out of

the same location as the December 12–

14, 2000 meeting. Please contact Ms.

Medina-Metzger for details on

participating in person or via phone.

Please check the SAB website

(www.epa.sab/sab) after January 8, 2001

to determine if this follow-up

teleconference meeting will take place

or not.

Availability of Materials—A copy of

the draft meeting agenda will be

available on the SAB website

(www.epa.gov/sab) approximately two

weeks prior to the meeting.

For Further Information—Any

member of the public wishing further

information concerning either meeting

or wishing to submit brief oral

comments must contact Ms. Melanie

Medina-Metzger, Designated Federal

Officer, Science Advisory Board

(1400A), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202)

564–5987; FAX (202) 501–0582; or via

e-mail at medinametzger.melanie@epa.gov. Requests for

oral comments must be in writing (email, fax or mail) and received by Ms.

Medina-Metzger no later than noon

Eastern Time December 8, 2000. Public

comments will be normally limited to

ten minutes per speaker or organization.

The request should identify the name of

the individual making the presentation,

the organization (if any) they will

represent, any requirements for audio

visual equipment (e.g., overhead

projector, 35mm projector, chalkboard,

easel, etc.), and at least 35 copies of an

outline of the issues to be addressed or

of the presentation itself.

For questions pertaining to the

Review on the ISCORS Draft Sewage

Sludge Dose Modeling Report or on any

other topics discussed between the

SAB’s RAC and the ORIA staff, please

contact Dr. Mary E. Clark, (6601J),

ORIA, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20460, tel. (202) 564–

9348; fax (202)–565–2043; or E-mail:

clark.marye@epa.gov.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at

SAB Meetings

It is the policy of the Science

Advisory Board to accept written public

comments of any length, and to

accommodate oral public comments

whenever possible. The Science

Advisory Board expects that public

statements presented at its meetings will

not be repetitive of previously

submitted oral or written statements.

Oral Comments

In general, each individual or group

requesting an oral presentation at a faceto-face meeting will be limited to a total

time of ten minutes. For teleconference

meetings, opportunities for oral

comment will usually be limited to no

more than three minutes per speaker

and no more than fifteen minutes total.

Deadlines for getting on the public

speaker list for a meeting are given

above. Speakers should bring at least 35

copies of their comments and

presentation slides for distribution to

the reviewers and public at the meeting.

Written Comments

Although the SAB accepts written

comments until the date of the meeting

(unless otherwise stated), written

comments should be received in the