[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76213-76215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30961]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 [email protected]).

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

[[Page 76214]]

gives more exact details, examples of forms, and final estimates of 
respondent burden. We also will file a year-end summary with OMB after 
the close of each fiscal year giving results of each activity 
conducted. This generic clearance enables OMB to review our overall 
strategy for MAF and TIGER updating in advance, instead of reviewing 
each activity in isolation shortly before the planned start. The Census 
Bureau used the MAF for mailing and delivering questionnaires to 
households during Census 2000. The MAF is also used as a sampling frame 
for our demographic current surveys. In the past, the Census Bureau 
built a new address list for each decennial census. The MAF we built 
for Census 2000 is meant to be kept current, thereby, eliminating the 
need to build a completely new address list for future censuses and 
surveys. The TIGER is a geographic system that maps the entire country 
in Census Blocks with applicable address range or living quarter 
location information. Linking MAF and TIGER allows us to assign each 
address to the appropriate Census Block, produce maps as needed and 
publish results at the appropriate level of geographic detail. The 
following are descriptions of each activity we plan to conduct under 
the clearance for the next three fiscal years.

1. Community Address Updating System (CAUS)

    The CAUS program will consist of both tests and actual production 
work over the next few years. The 2000 CAUS Field Test was conducted in 
twenty-four counties throughout the country. The test began in Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2000 and will continue into FY 2001. The tests objectives are 
to obtain address information about new housing units and add those to 
the MAF, and to correct and update the existing addresses in the MAF. 
In FY 2000, we produced data sets and assignments which we loaded onto 
laptop computers. The data sets are used in the Automated Listing and 
Mapping Instrument (ALMI) to allow the Field Representatives (FRs) to 
collect updates which can then be applied to the Master Address File 
(MAF) and TIGER.
    In addition to the above, a smaller ``Splash'' test will be 
conducted sometime during the first half of 2001. This field test will 
be similar to the 2000 field test, but on a smaller scale. The 
estimated number of households involved will be 2,500. The estimated 
time per response is 2 minutes. The estimated respondent burden hours 
is 85 hours.
    In FY 2002, there will be a CAUS Field Test Dress Rehearsal. The 
operation will be similar to the 2000 CAUS Field Test, but there will 
be more of a production component to the CAUS Dress Rehearsal. The 
estimated number of households involved will be 125,000. The estimated 
time per response is 2 minutes. The estimated respondent burden hours 
is 4,165 hours.
    Planned for FY 2003 is the actual CAUS operation. The operation 
will take place nationwide. The estimated number of households involved 
will be 200,000. The estimated time per response is 2 minutes. The 
estimated respondent burden hours is 6,660 hours.
    The CAUS will help the Census Bureau maintain a current MAF and 
TIGER throughout the decade and into the next decennial census.

2. Evaluation of the Quality of Geocodes

    The Census Bureau is conducting the Accuracy and Coverage 
Evaluation (A.C.E.) to measure the overall and differential coverage of 
the U.S. population and housing in Census 2000. An independent listing 
(IL) of all the housing units in the A.C.E. sample clusters was 
conducted before census day. This IL was then matched to the Decennial 
Master Address File (DMAF) to measure housing unit coverage. In some 
cases, the results found in A.C.E. will reflect geocoding error in the 
census. The objective of the Evaluation of the Quality of the Geocodes 
Associated with Census Addresses is to measure the quality of the 
geocodes in Census 2000, beyond the measure provided by the A.C.E.
    The final housing unit matching results from the A.C.E. sample are 
used as the starting point for this evaluation. For cases that didn't 
match during the final housing unit matching, the search will be 
extended from the block cluster level on the DMAF to a wider search 
area on the MAF. Potential matches from this search indicate possible 
geocoding error or cases that were excluded from Census 2000. In some 
cases, field follow-up will be done to confirm the matches.
    There are approximately 310,000 housing units in the A.C.E. 
Approximately 10,600 of those 310,000 are expected to not match to the 
DMAF. These 10,600 cases will then be computer matched to the full MAF 
looking at the ring of 1990 census tracts surrounding the 1990 tract to 
which the address is assigned in the MAF.
    Roughly 4,000 of the 10,600 housing units are expected to computer 
match to the MAF at the surrounding tract level and 6,600 are not. 
These 6,600 cases will be sent to the National Processing Center for 
clerical matching. About 2,000 of the 6,600 are estimated to clerically 
match to the MAF at the surrounding tract level. That gives an 
estimated 6,000 cases that will match to the MAF at the surrounding 
tract level. These 6,000 cases will be sent to the field for follow-up. 
For cases that match to units on the MAF within the ring of tracts, 
Field Division will be asked to confirm the existence of the unit and 
the MAF block. All of the remaining A.C.E. nonmatches will be assumed 
to be census misses.
    It is anticipated that the field work will involve contacting 
respondents about residential status only if it is not already obvious. 
In addition, field staff may need to contact residents regarding 
specific information about the location of their unit to help determine 
what block they're in. The most burdensome case scenario would be all 
6,000 units being contacted. The estimated time per response is 1 
minute. The estimated total respondent burden is 100 hours. All of the 
field work is expected to take place in FY 2002.

3. Evaluation of the Block Splitting Operation for Tabulation Purposes

    Collection blocks are blocks defined by visible features. Sometimes 
these blocks cross governmental or other required data tabulation 
boundaries. Collection blocks are used to conduct field operations. At 
the end of Census 2000, blocks need to be defined by governmental and 
other boundaries for data tabulation purposes. To achieve this, 
collection blocks need to be split in certain situations. The resulting 
blocks are called tabulation blocks.
    The objective of this evaluation is to measure the quality of the 
processes that are used to provide the address range and map spot 
information to split blocks for tabulation purposes.
    Approximately 600,000 blocks will be split for tabulation purposes. 
For this evaluation, a sample of collection blocks that have at least 
one block split caused by tabulation geography will be field visited. 
The purpose of the field visit is to determine if the splitting of the 
block was accurate relative to the actual feature or governmental unit 
boundary that caused the block split in the first place. The types of 
tabulation geography that are inscope for this evaluation are visible 
boundaries, non-visible governmental boundaries, and American Indian 
Reservation boundaries. The sample of blocks will be split blocks that 
have at least one housing unit or group quarters. Areas that were 
enumerated in the Remote Alaska operation will not be in sample. Puerto 
Rico will be in sample however,

[[Page 76215]]

the sample size may not be large enough to produce estimates 
specifically for Puerto Rico.
    All sampled split collection blocks will be sent to the field with 
maps and listings of addresses in the 2000 Census. Field will determine 
actual tabulation geography for every housing unit in the collection 
block.
    A sample size has not been determined yet. The most burdensome case 
scenario would be approximately 10,000 units being contacted. This is 
based on the assumptions that:
     2,000 blocks will be selected,
     Each block has 30 housing units,
     Most of the field work will be done by observation, and
     5 housing units per block will need to be contacted to 
confirm their location relative to the governmental boundary.
    The estimated time per response is 1 minute. The estimated total 
respondent burden is 167 hours. All of the field work will occur in FY 
2001.
    In addition to the above evaluations, there may be other 
evaluations that may be conducted in the next three years to help the 
Census Bureau evaluate the quality of work done during Census 2000. Any 
other evaluations would be similar to those above and would be within 
the scope of the clearance as a MAF/TIGER updating activity.

II. Method of Collection

    The primary method of data collection for all operations will be 
personal interview by Census Listers or Enumerators using the 
operation's listing form. In some cases, the interview could be by 
telephone callback if no one was home on the initial visit. See part I 
for details of each operation.

III. Data

    OMB Number: 0607-0809.
    Form Number: The form numbers for some activities have not yet been 
assigned. See the descriptions of the activities in part I for form 
numbers where applicable.
    Type of Review: Regular submission.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: Varies by operation, see chart 
below.
    Estimated Time Per Response: Varies by operation, see chart below.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: FY01 377; FY02 10,500; FY03 
16,700.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: The only cost to respondents is that 
of their time to respond.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Sections 141 and 
193.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Average    Responses    FY 2001     FY 2002     FY 2003
                       Activity                          FY 2001      FY 2002      FY 2003     hours per      per       burden      burden      burden
                                                       respondents  respondents  respondents   response   respondent     hours       hours       hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAUS (Splash Test)...................................        2,500            0            0        .033           1          85           0           0
CAUS (Dress Rehearsal)...............................            0      125,000            0        .033           1           0       4,165           0
CAUS Operation.......................................            0            0      200,000        .033           1           0           0       6,660
Evaluations (Quality of Geocodes)....................            0        6,000            0        .016           1           0         100           0
Evaluations (Block Splitting)........................       10,000            0            0        .016           1         167           0           0
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals.........................................       12,500      131,000      200,000  ..........  ..........         252       4,265       6,660
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (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 
(including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; 
(c) ways to enhance 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.
    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized 
and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information 
collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 30, 2000.
Madeleine Clayton,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-30961 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P