76212 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices

Elko Daily Free Press, Elko, Nevada

Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor

decisions for the Toiyabe portion:

Reno Gazette-Journal, Reno, Nevada

Sierra Ecosystem Coordination Center

(SECO):

Carson District Ranger decisions:

Reno Gazette-Journal, Reno, Nevada

Bridgeport District Ranger, decisions:

The Review-Herald, Mammoth Lakes,

California

Spring Mountains National Recreation

Area Ecosystem (SMNRAE):

Spring Mountains National Recreation

Area District Ranger decisions:

Las Vegas Review Journal, Las Vegas,

Nevada

Central Nevada Ecosystem (CNECO):

Austin District Ranger decisions:

Reno Gazette-Journal, Reno, Nevada

Tonopah District Ranger decisions:

Tonopah Times Bonanza-Goldfield

News, Tonopah, Nevada

Ely District Ranger decisions:

Ely Daily Times, Ely, Nevada

Northeast Nevada Ecosystem (NNECO):

Mountain City District Ranger decisions:

Elko Daily Free Press, Elko, Nevada

Ruby Mountains District Ranger

decisions:

Elko Daily Free Press, Elko, Nevada

Jarbidge District Ranger decisions:

Elko Daily Free Press, Elko, Nevada

Santa Rosa District Ranger decisions:

Humboldt Sun, Winnemucca, Nevada

Manti-Lasal National Forest

Manti-LaSal Forest Supervisor

decisions:

Sun Advocate, Price, Utah

Sanpete District Ranger decisions:

The Pyramid, Mt. Pleasant, Utah

Ferron District Ranger decisions:

Emery County Progress, Castle Dale,

Utah

Price District Ranger decisions:

Sun Advocate, Price, Utah

Moab District Ranger decisions:

The Times Independent, Moab, Utah

Monticello District Ranger decisions:

The San Juan Record, Monticello,

Utah

Payette National Forest

Payette Forest Supervisor decisions:

Idaho Statesman, Boise, Idaho

Weiser District Ranger decisions:

Signal American, Weiser, Idaho

Council District Ranger decisions:

Council Record, Council, Idaho.

New Meadows, McCall, and Krassel

District Ranger decisions:

Star News, McCall, Idaho

Salmon-Challis National Forests

Salmon-Challis Forest Supervisor

decisions for the Salmon portion:

The Recorder-Herald, Salmon, Idaho

Salmon-Challis Forest Supervisor

decisions for the Challis portion:

The Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho

North Fork District Ranger decisions:

The Recorder-Herald, Salmon, Idaho

Leadore District Ranger decisions:

The Recorder-Herald, Salmon, Idaho

Salmon/Colbalt District Ranger

decisions:

The Recorder-Herald, Salmon, Idaho

Middle Fork District Ranger decisions:

The Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho

Challis District Ranger decisions:

The Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho

Yankee Fork District Ranger decisions:

The Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho

Lost River District Ranger decisions:

The Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho

Sawtooth National Forest

Sawtooth Forest Supervisor decisions:

The Times News, Twin Falls, Idaho

Burley District Ranger decisions:

Ogden Standard Examiner, Ogden,

Utah, for those decisions on the

Burley District involving the Raft

River Unit.

South Idaho Press, Burley, Idaho, for

decisions issued on the Idaho

portion of the Burley District.

Twin Falls District Ranger decisions:

The Times News, Twin Falls, Idaho

Ketchum District Ranger decisions:

Idaho Mountain Express, Ketchum,

Idaho

Sawtooth National Recreation Area:

Challis Messenger, Challis, Idaho

Fairfield District Ranger decisions:

The Times News, Twin Falls, Idaho

Uinta National Forest

Uinta Forest Supervisor decisions:

The Daily Herald, Provo, Utah

Pleasant Grove District Ranger

decisions:

The Daily Herald, Provo, Utah

Heber District Ranger decisions:

The Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, and

Spanish Fork District Ranger decisions:

The Daily Herald, Provo, Utah

Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Wasatch-Cache Forest Supervisor

decisions:

Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City,

Utah

Salt Lake District Ranger decisions:

Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City,

Utah

Kamas District Ranger decisions:

Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City,

Utah

Evanston District Ranger decisions:

Uintah County Herald, Evanston,

Wyoming

Mountain View District Ranger

decisions:

Uintah County Herald, Evanston,

Wyoming

Ogden District Ranger decisions:

Ogden Standard Examiner, Ogden,

Utah

Logan District Ranger decisions:

Logan Herald Journal, Logan, Utah

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Jack A. Blackwell,

Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 00–30999 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Maximum Dollar Amount on Loan and

Grant Awards Under the Rural

Economic Development Loan and

Grant Program for Fiscal Year 2001

AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Rural BusinessCooperative Service hereby announces

the maximum dollar amount on loan

and grant awards under the Rural

Economic Development Loan and Grant

(REDLG) program for fiscal year (FY)

2001. The maximum dollar award on

zero-interest loans for FY 2001 is

$450,000. The maximum dollar award

on grants for FY 2001 is $200,000. The

maximum loan and grant awards stated

in this notice are effective for loans and

grants made during the fiscal year

beginning October 1, 2000, and ending

September 30, 2001. REDLG loans and

grants are available to Rural Utilities

Service electric and telephone utilities

to assist in developing rural areas from

an economic standpoint.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Wing, Loan Specialist, Rural

Business-Cooperative Service, USDA,

STOP 3225, Room 6870, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250. Telephone:

(202) 720–9558. FAX: (202) 720–6561.

E-mail: PWing@rus.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

maximum loan and grant awards are

determined in accordance with 7 CFR

1703.28. The maximum loan and grant

awards are calculated as 3.0 percent of

the projected program levels; however,

as specified in 7 CFR 1703.28(b),

regardless of the projected total amount

that will be available, the maximum size

may not be lower than $200,000. The

projected program level during FY 2001

for zero-interest loans is $15 million and

the projected program level for grants is

$3 million. Applying the specified 3.0

percent to the program level for loans

results in the maximum loan award of

$450,000. Applying the specified 3.0

percent to the program level for grants

results in an amount lower than

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices 76213

$200,000. Therefore, the maximum

grant award for FY 2001 will be

$200,000.

Dated: November 21, 2000.

Wilbur T. Peer,

Acting Administrator, Rural BusinessCooperative Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30966 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–XY–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

DOC has submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

clearance the following proposal for

collection of information under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

Title: 2001 Survey of Program

Dynamics.

Form Number(s): SPD–21005, SPD–

21006, SPD–21007, SPD–21008, SPD–

21009, SPD–21103(L), SPD–21105(L),

SPD–21107(L), SPD–21109(L), SPD–

21113(L), SPD–21999.

Agency Approval Number: 0607–

0838.

Type of Request: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Burden: 37,023 hours.

Number of Respondents: 75,225.

Avg Hours Per Response: 29.5

minutes.

Needs and Uses: The Census Bureau

seeks OMB approval to conduct the

2001 Survey of Program Dynamics

(SPD). The SPD provides the basis for an

overall evaluation of how well welfare

reforms are achieving the aims of the

Administration and the Congress and

meeting the needs of the American

people. This survey simultaneously

measures the important features of the

full range of welfare programs,

including programs that are being

reformed and those that are unchanged,

and the full range of other important

social, economic, demographic, and

family changes that will facilitate or

limit the effectiveness of the reforms.

The SPD is a longitudinal study that

follows a subset of the respondents from

the 1992 and 1993 panels of the Survey

of Income and Program Participation

(SIPP). The SPD was first implemented

in the spring of 1997 with a bridge

survey that provided a link to baseline

data for the period prior to the

implementation of welfare reforms. The

first full-scale SPD was conducted in

1998. Annual surveys are currently

planned through 2002. The data

gathered for the 10-year period (1992–

2002) will aid in assessing short- to

medium-term consequences of

outcomes of the welfare legislation.

The 2001 SPD instrument will remain

largely unchanged from 2000. A new

response category will be added to an

existing question regarding types of

health insurance coverage. Also, a paper

Adolescent Self-Administered

Questionnaire (SAQ) for 12- to 17-yearolds will be added. The Adolescent

SAQ was last asked in the 1998 SPD.

The 2001 SPD is conducted by our

interviewing staff using a computerassisted interviewing instrument on

laptops during personal and telephone

interviews.

In order to improve the validity of the

SPD data we supplemented the 2000

SPD sample with 3,500 former SIPP

households who were non-interviews in

the 1997 SPD. Contingent on

Congressional funding, we plan to

continue interviewing these 3,500

households and add an additional 6,000

former SIPP households to the 2001 SPD

sample. As in previous years, we will

offer monetary incentives to select

groups of respondents in order to

maintain and improve response rates.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households.

Frequency: Annually.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 42 U.S.C.,

Section 614.

OMB Desk Officer: Susan Schechter,

(202) 395–5103.

Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained by

calling or writing Madeleine Clayton,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer,

(202) 482–3129, Department of

Commerce, room 6086, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at

mclayton@doc.gov).

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collection should be sent

within 30 days of publication of this

notice to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk

Officer, room 10201, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Madeleine Clayton,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of the Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–30962 Filed 12–05–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Census Bureau

Master Address File (MAF) and

Topologically Integrated Geographic

Encoding and Referencing (TIGER)

Update Activities

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment

request.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on

proposed and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before February 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Madeleine Clayton, Departmental

Forms Clearance Officer, Department of

Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at

mclayton@doc.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

instrument(s) and instructions should

be directed to Bob Tomassoni, Bureau of

the Census, WP–1, Room 204,

Washington, DC 20233. Phone Number

301–457–8253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

Note: The present clearance expires May

31, 2001. This request covers field activities

to be conducted from June 1, 2001 through

May 31, 2004.

The Census Bureau presently operates

a generic clearance covering activities

involving respondent burden associated

with updating our Master Address File

(MAF) and Topologically Integrated

Geographic Encoding and Referencing

(TIGER) system. (The MAF is the

Census Bureau’s address database and

TIGER is the geographic database.) We

now propose to extend that generic

clearance to cover update activities we

will undertake during the next three

fiscal years.

Under the terms of the generic

clearance, we plan to submit a request

for OMB approval that will describe all

planned activities for the entire period;

we will not submit a clearance package

for each updating activity. We will send

a letter to OMB at least five days before

the planned start of each activity that