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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Notices 30633

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR–3917–N–94]

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Housing-Federal Housing

Commissioner; Notice of Proposed

Information Collection for Public

Comment

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The proposed information

collection requirement described below

will be submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act. The Department is

soliciting public comments on the

subject proposal.

DATES: Comments due: August 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit comments regarding

this proposal. Comments should refer to

the proposal by name and or OMB

Control Number and should be sent to:

Oliver Walker, Housing, Department of

Housing & Urban Development, 451–7th

Street, SW, Room 9116, Washington, DC

20410.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kerry J. Mulholland, Telephone number

(202) 708–0614, Ext. 2649 (this is not a

toll-free number) for copies of the

proposed forms and other available

documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department will submit the proposed

information collection to OMB for

review, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35, as amended).

The Notice is soliciting comments

from members of the public and

affecting agencies concerning the

proposed collection of information to:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (2) evaluate the

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the

burden of the proposed collection of

information; (3) enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and (4) minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on those who are to respond; including

through the use of appropriate

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

This Notice also lists the following

information:

Title of Proposal: Calculation of

Tenant Rents at Title VI Preservation

Projects—HUD–90012

OMB Control Number, if applicable:

2502–0489

Description of the need for the

information and proposed use: The

Department requests extension of

information collection required to

implement Title II of the Housing and

Community Development Act of 1987

and Title VI of the National Affordable

Housing Act of 1990 (The Statutes). The

Statutes instruct the Department on how

to implement rents resulting from a

successful Plan of Action to maintain a

project’s affordability. This rent

structure was implemented by

regulation on September 21, 1990, and

April 8, 1992 at CFR Part 248. The Title

VI project rent structure portion was

modified by appropriations action

found in Public Law 103–327, dated

September 18, 1994, which provided for

incorporating provisions that necessitate

inclusion of a tenant payment standard

for Lower Income Residents receiving

Section 8 assistance during FY 1995.

The interim rule includes one case of

information collection. The form will be

used by owners to assist in calculating

annual rent payments made by each

tenant residing in the property. The FY

1995 Appropriations changes to Lower

Income Tenant rent payments remain in

effect as along as the Department funds

under FY 1995 conditions. Owners are

currently required to recertify tenants

annually using Form HUD–50059. Form

HUD–90012 amends the current

recertification process to meet program

guidelines. Information on the form will

also be used by HUD field offices to

monitor the owner’s accurate

calculation of these rent payments.

Agency form number, if applicable:

HUD–90012

Members of affected public:

Approximately 161 owners of LIHPRHA

projects and approximately 54 ELIPHA

projects located throughout the

Continental United States.

An estimation of the total number of

hours needed to prepare the information

collection is 1,862, the number of

respondents is 161, frequency of

response is 1, and the hours of response

is 8.66.

Status of the proposed information

collection: Extension with change.

Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35,

as amended.

Dated: June 10, 1996.

Nicolas P. Retsinas,

Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal

Housing Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 96–15226 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–01–M

[Docket No. FR–3917–N–93]

Government National Mortgage

Association; Notice of Proposed

Information Collection for Public

Comment

AGENCY: Government National Mortgage

Association, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The proposed information

collection requirement described below

will be submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act. The Department is

soliciting public comments on the

subject proposal.

DATES: Comments due: August 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit comments regarding

this proposal. Comments should refer to

the proposal by name and/or OMB

Control Number and should be sent to:

Sonya K. Suarez, Government National

Mortgage Association, Office of

Program, Policy, Procedure, and Risk

Management, Department of Housing &

Urban Development, 451–7th Street,

SW, Room 6222, Washington, DC 20410.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sonya K. Suarez, on (202) 708–2884

(this is not a toll-free number) for copies

of the proposed forms and other

available documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department will submit the proposed

information collection to OMB for

review, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35, as amended).

The Notice is soliciting comments

from members of the public and

affecting agencies concerning the

proposed collection of information to:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (2) Evaluate the

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the

burden of the proposed collection of

information; (3) Enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and (4) Minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on those who are to respond; including

through the use of appropriate

automated collection techniques or