The purpose of the Commission is to provide advice and recommendations to the President and Congress on the creation of an integrated, coordinated Federal policy, designed to prepare for and respond to serious drought emergencies. Tasks for the Commission include developing recommendations that will (a) better integrate Federal laws and programs with ongoing State, local, and tribal programs, (b) improve public awareness of the need for drought mitigation, prevention, and response and (c) determine whether all Federal drought preparation and response programs should be consolidated under one existing Federal agency, and, if so, identify the agency.

The Commission's draft vision statement is of a well-informed, involved U. S. citizenry and its governments prepared for and capable of lessening the impacts of drought—consistently and timely. Drought policy should improve national security and foster economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social well being. It should also benefit future generations as well as our own.

This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

This action is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

These programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.553, No. 10.555, No. 10.556, No. 10.558 and No. 10.559 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and the final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)

Pursuant to sections 9(b)(1) and 17(c)(4) of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 1766(c)(4)), and sections 3(a)(6) and 4(e)(1)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772(a)(6) and 1773(e)(1)(A)), the Department annually issues the Income Eligibility Guidelines for free and reduced price meals for the National School Lunch Program (7 CFR part 210), the Commodity School Program (7 CFR part 210), School Breakfast Program (7 CFR part 220), Summer Food Service Program (7 CFR part 225) and Child and Adult Care Food Program (7 CFR part 226) and the guidelines for free milk in the Special Milk Program for Children (7 CFR part 215). These eligibility guidelines are based on the Federal income poverty guidelines and are stated by household size. The guidelines are used to determine eligibility for free and reduced price meals and free milk in accordance with applicable program rules.

“Income,” as the term is used in this Notice, means income before any deductions such as income taxes, Social Security taxes, insurance premiums, charitable contributions and bonds. It includes the following: (1) Monetary compensation for services, including wages, salary, commissions or fees; (2) net income from nonfarm self-employment; (3) net income from farm self-employment; (4) Social Security; (5) dividends or interest on savings or bonds or income from estates or trusts; (6) net rental income; (7) public assistance or welfare payments; (8) unemployment compensation; (9) government civilian employee or military retirement, or pensions or veterans payments; (10) private pensions or annuities; (11) alimony or child support payments; (12) regular contributions from persons not living in the household; (13) net royalties; and (14) other cash income. Other cash income would include cash amounts received or withdrawn from any source including savings, investments, trust accounts and other resources which would be available to pay the price of a child's meal.

“Income,” as the term is used in this Notice, does not include any income or benefits received under any Federal programs which are excluded from consideration as income by any legislative prohibition. Furthermore, the value of meals or milk to children shall not be considered as income to their households for other benefit programs in accordance with the prohibitions in section 12(e) of the National School Lunch Act and section 11(b) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1760(e) and 1780(b)).

The following are the Income Eligibility Guidelines to be effective from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. The Department's guidelines for free meals and milk and reduced price meals were obtained by multiplying the year 2000 Federal income poverty guidelines by 1.30 and 1.85 , respectively, and by rounding the result upward to the next whole dollar. Weekly and monthly guidelines were computed by dividing annual income by 52 and 12, respectively, and by rounding upward to the next whole dollar. The numbers reflected in this notice for a family of four represent an increase of 2.09% over the July 1999 numbers for a family of the same size.

Codex was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the major international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled.

The Codex Committee on Food Labelling drafts provisions on labeling applicable to all foods; considers, amends if necessary, and endorses specific provisions on labeling prepared by the Codex Committees drafting standards, codes of practice and guidelines; studies specific labeling problems assigned to it by the Commission, and studies problems associated with the advertisement of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions.

Agenda items will be described and discussed at the April 17, 2000, public meeting. Attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments.

The provisional agenda items to be discussed during the public meeting:

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and provide copies of this Federal Register publication in the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly FSIS Constituent Update, which is communicated via fax to over 300 organizations and individuals. In addition, the update is available on-line through the FSIS web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The constituent fax list consists of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be included.

Through these various channels, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. For more information and to be added to the constituent fax list, fax your request to the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-5704.

On February 1, 1994, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management published, in the Federal Register , a notice of intent to prepare an EIS (the Eastside Environmental Impact Statement) to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based management strategy for the lands managed by those two agencies and located east of the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington. On December 7, 1994, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS (the Upper Columbia River Basin Environmental Impact Statement) and conduct planning activity to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based management strategy for lands administered by those two agencies within the Columbia River basin in the states of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. On August 7, 1995, the two agencies published an amended notice of intent excluding the Forest Service-administered lands within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem from the Upper Columbia River Basin planning effort.

On June 6, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency published its notice of availability of the two draft EISs—Eastside draft EIS and Upper Columbia River Basin draft EIS—and informed the public of a 120-day public review period. The review period was ultimately extended to eleven months. During the public review period, over 83,000 responses, commenting on the two draft EISs, were received.

To simplify further public review, to clarify the fact that one broad-scale strategy is being developed, and to save time and money in preparation, printing, and distribution of additional documents, the Executive Steering Committee (the responsible officials for this project) has decided that future environmental analysis of alternative management strategies will be documented in one EIS, rather than two. (This unified effort is referred to as the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP)). Further, alternative management strategies will focus on issues that are best addressed at the basin-wide scale. Those issues that are limited to smaller geographic units (individual or small groupings of administrative units) will be resolved at that level through local public involvement and the land management agencies' existing planning and decision-making processes.

The Executive Steering Committee decided to refine the management direction being developed in response to public comment. They determined that the refined management direction could include substantial changes in the proposed action that would be relevant to environmental concerns, and that the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act would be furthered by preparing a supplemental draft EIS.

The supplemental draft EIS is responsive to the basin-wide issues identified during the initial public scoping and described in the two draft EISs, the public comments received on the two draft EISs, and the findings of the Science Integration Team, described in An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Quigley, and Arbelbide, eds 1997) and Integrated Scientific Assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Quigley, Haynes and Graham, eds) 1996.

The characteristics of the refined management direction described and analyzed in the supplemental draft EIS are as follows:

1. It addresses the limited number of issues that must be resolved at the Basin level.

2. It describes an aquatic conservation strategy to replace interim strategies, PacFish and InFish. Also, the biological opinion (pursuant to formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act) on the ICBEMP selected alternative will replace the three biological opinions recently completed on the Land and Resource Management Plans as amended by PacFish and InFish (National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1995, NMFS 1998, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998). The aquatic conservation strategy is also to provide adequate habitat and water quality to result in long-term viability for steelhead, salmon, cutthroat, bull trout and other aquatic species; and to address Basin-wide Clean Water Act responsibilities.

3. The refined direction describes a terrestrial habitat strategy to provide habitat for wide-ranging species. Species that have limited ranges and require site-specific information ( e.g., woodland caribou) will be addressed at the scale most appropriate to their needs rather than in the ICBEMP planning.

4. Landscape health issues will be addressed through objectives and standards to provide a common set of desired outcomes and to coordinate budgeting, priority setting, and on-the-ground activities. (Specific design of activities will be addressed at the local level, rather than in this basin-wide supplemental draft EIS.) Issues addressed include the spread of noxious weeds, and the potential for unnaturally large and dangerous wild fires.

5. The supplemental draft EIS includes objectives and standards designed to ensure land management considers and, to the extent possible, supports economic and/or social needs of people, cultures, and communities through more sustainable and predictable levels of goods and services from National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands. The objectives and standards will respond to the need to contribute to the vitality and resiliency of human communities and to provide for human uses and values of natural resources consistent with maintaining healthy, diverse ecosystems.

Regarding the decisions recorded in the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, (also referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan) approved April 13, 1994, the Eastside draft EIS said, “While the alternatives and corresponding analysis in the EIS include this overlap area [ i.e., that portion of the range of the northern spotted owl found east of the Cascade crest], decisions in the Northwest Forest Plan would not be superseded by Eastside EIS decisions unless subsequent amendments were made per Northwest Forest Plan direction.” Many readers were not certain what this meant. To reduce confusion, the Executive Steering Committee for ICBEMP has eliminated this overlap area from the ICBEMP decision space. The record of decision for the ICBEMP will not apply to any area already being managed under the Northwest Forest Plan.

As noted above, the refined management direction is being developed to address issues that are best resolved at the basin-wide scale. The Executive Steering Committee has determined that current issues on Forest Service- and Bureau of Land Management-administered lands within the States of Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada do not need to be resolved at the basin level and will be more efficiently addressed through existing planning processes at the local (National Forest or BLM District/Field Office) level. (The approximate acreage of Forest Service-and Bureau of Land Management-administered lands within the Columbia River Basin within each of these three states is as follows: Wyoming, 23,000; Utah, 111,500; and Nevada, 2.6 million, for a total of 2.7 million acres, or about 4% of the Forest Service- and Bureau of Land Management-administered lands within the ICBEMP area.) No basin-wide issues have been identified on the lands within the Columbia River Basin administered by BLM in Wyoming. In Utah, the Forest Service will replace its interim InFish strategy (which applies to native fish within the planning area) through the Sawtooth National Forest plan revision, scheduled for completion by the end of the year 2000. In Nevada, the Forest Service will replace the interim InFish strategy through the plan amendment process.

Therefore, no Bureau of Land Management- or Forest Service-administered lands in Wyoming, Utah, or Nevada will be included in the supplemental draft EIS, final EIS, or the record of decision for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.

The Supplemental draft EIS describes and analyzes three alternatives: a no action alternative, updated from the version presented in the two draft EISs; and two alternatives that share the characteristics of the refined management direction described earlier in this notice. One of these two alternatives describes a relatively conservative approach to decreasing long-term risk. The other explores the potential to decrease long-term risk faster by accepting greater short-term risk. This latter alternative requires less analysis before restoration is undertaken.

The selected alternative may result in amendment to the Forest Service Regional Guides for the Northern, Intermountain, and Pacific Northwest Regions and will amend land use plans for the administrative units of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management within the ICBEMP area as follows:

Forest Service: Boise, Payette, Salmon-Challis, and Sawtooth National Forests and the portion of the Caribou National Forest outside the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in the Intermountain Region; Panhandle, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Kootenai, Lolo, Flathead, Helena, Deerlodge, and Bitterroot National Forests in the Northern Region; and Ochoco, Winema, Malheur, Deschutes, Fremont, Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla, Okanogan, and Colville National Forests in the Pacific Northwest Region. Bureau of Land Management: Lower Snake River District, Upper Snake River District, and the Upper Columbia-Salmon Clearwater District in Idaho; Missoula Field Office in Montana; and Prineville, Lakeview, Burns, Vale, and Spokane Districts in Oregon/Washington.

Title: Women on U.S. Farms Survey.

Type of Request: Intent to Seek Approval to Conduct an Information Collection.

Abstract: The goal of this National Agricultural Statistics Service and Penn State University co-operative project is to expand the knowledge base concerning the participation of women in U.S. agriculture. This knowledge will be useful for formulating policy related to agriculture and rural development and will also be helpful for social and economic researchers interested in farming and agriculture. Farm women have been found to contribute substantially to agricultural production through their involvement in farm work, farm decisions, and agricultural organizations. The U.S. Census of Agriculture, the major source of data about agricultural production and farm operators in the United States, undercounts women's involvement in farm enterprises because only one operator per farm is counted. In addition, no national-level study has sought information about women's participation in agriculture since 1980. We have only limited information about how changes in agriculture and farming have affected women's work on farms and their participation in decisions related to farming. The findings from the proposed study will provide information for developing government policies that can more effectively serve women as well as men who live and work on farms. Policies and programs that lower structural barriers and increase opportunities for women can improve the economic viability of U.S. farms.

The project addresses the following objectives: (1) To analyze the nature and extent of women's participation in farm operations in the U.S. today, including their participation in farm tasks, farm decision-making, farm organizations, and government agriculture programs; to ascertain the variation in such involvement by region, type of farm, and the socio-demographic characteristics of the women themselves; and to describe changes that have occurred in the last 20 years. (2) To assess the current participation of women on U.S. farms in nonfarm work, including the type and extent of off-farm employment, nonfarm self-employment, and involvement in the informal economy and changes in nonfarm work patterns since 1980.

The sample is 5,000 farms operated as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or family corporations. The respondent will be the farm operator, if a woman, or the wife of the male farm operator at each of the selected farms. While it is anticipated that the overwhelming majority of farm operators will be men, most are expected to have spouses present in the household. The projected usable sample of farm women is thus approximately 4,000 cases. In addition, 500 farm men will be interviewed to compare the work of farm men and women and to identify differences in men's and women's perceptions of women's involvement in the farm enterprise. The men who will be interviewed will be spouses or partners of 500 of the farm women who are interviewed in the study. All interviews will be conducted using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system, which provides for quality control monitoring of interviews, managing call scheduling and call-backs, automatic record keeping, question presentation, and response recording. Approximately two weeks prior to the beginning of the interviews, letters will be sent to the sample members explaining the purpose of the study and alerting them to the coming call.

These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Estimate of Burden: Test interviews indicated that the women's interview will require approximately 28 minutes and the men's approximately 20 minutes. There will be a pre-survey letter mailed to all 5,000 in the sample.

Respondents: Female and male farm operators.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,000 women and 500 men.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2,400 hours.

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, Agency OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.

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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Ginny McBride, Agency OMB Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 4162 South Building, Washington, D.C. 20250-2000. All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be included in the request for OMB approval.

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) established a Passenger Vessel Access Advisory Committee (committee) to assist the Board in developing proposed accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered passenger vessels covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 63 FR 43136 (August 12, 1998). The committee is composed of owners and operators of various passenger vessels; persons who design passenger vessels; organizations representing individuals with disabilities; and other individuals affected by the Board's guidelines.

The meeting is open to the public and interested persons can attend and communicate their views. Members of the public will have an opportunity to address the committee on issues of interest to them and the committee during the public comment period generally scheduled at the end of each meeting day. Members of groups, or individuals who are not members of the committee, may also have the opportunity to participate with subcommittees of the committee. Additionally, all interested persons will have the opportunity to comment when the proposed accessibility guidelines for passenger vessels are issued in the Federal Register by the Access Board.

The facility is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require sign language interpreters or real-time captioning systems should contact Paul Beatty by April 18, 2000. Notices of future meetings will be published in the Federal Register .

The following species, evolutionary significant units (ESU's), and runs are covered in the permit:

Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ): threatened Snake River (SnR) spring/summer, endangered upper Columbia River (UCR) spring.

Sockeye salmon ( O. nerka ): endangered SnR.

Steelhead ( O. mykiss ): endangered UCR.

Notice was published on February 3, 2000 (65 FR 5322) that ODFW and WDFW jointly applied for a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for incidental takes of ESA-listed anadromous fish adults associated with otherwise lawful sport and commercial fisheries on non-listed species in the lower and middle Columbia River and its tributaries in the Pacific Northwest. ODFW and WDFW submitted a Conservation Plan with their permit application that describes measures designed to monitor, minimize, and mitigate the incidental taking of ESA-listed anadromous salmonids associated with some or all of the winter/spring/summer fisheries that are expected to occur during 2000. Specifically, this Conservation Plan and Permit cover only those species, ESU's, and runs identified above which occur primarily in Columbia River mainstem fisheries through July 2000. Incidental take of other listed species, ESU's and runs during the conduct of fall season fisheries (i.e., SnR fall chinook, SnR steelhead) are not authorized by this permit and will require a separate application from ODFW and WDFW.

NMFS' decision is to adopt the preferred alternative in the Conservation Plan together with the preferred alternative in the Environmental Assessment that was completed for this permit action and issue a permit with conditions authorizing incidental takes of the ESA-listed anadromous fish species. This decision is based on a thorough review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences. NMFS' conditions will ensure that the incidental takes of ESA-listed anadromous fish will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. By adopting the preferred alternative in the Conservation Plan, with the Conservation Plan's stated assurances that ODFW and WDFW's mitigation program will be implemented, all practicable means to avoid or minimize harm have been adopted.

ODFW and WDFW requested incidental takes of threatened lower Columbia River (LCR) chinook salmon, threatened upper Willamette River (UWR) chinook salmon, threatened SnR steelhead, threatened middle Columbia River (MCR) steelhead, threatened LCR steelhead, and threatened UWR steelhead. Protective regulations are currently proposed for LCR and UWR chinook salmon (65 FR 169, January 3, 2000) and SnR, MCR, LCR, and UWR steelhead (64 FR 73479, December 30, 1999). NMFS did not act on that part of ODFW and WDFW's permit application. In the future, when NMFS promulgates final rules under section 4(d) of the ESA that will provide take prohibitions for threatened LCR chinook salmon, threatened UWR chinook salmon, threatened SnR steelhead, threatened MCR steelhead, threatened LCR steelhead, and threatened UWR steelhead, NMFS may amend the permit to include the authorization for incidental takes of these species as ODFW and WDFW requested in their application. Issuance of the permit does not presuppose the contents of the eventual protective regulations.

The decision to issue the permit was made because the Conservation Plan proposed by ODFW and WDFW meets the statutory criteria for issuance of an incidental take permit under section 10 of the ESA. In issuing the permit, NMFS determined that ODFW and WDFW's Conservation Plan provides adequate mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for the anticipated takes of ESA-listed anadromous fish.

The permit was granted only after NMFS determined that the permit was applied for in good faith, that all permit issuance criteria were met, including the requirement that granting the permit would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and that the permit is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

The Committee will continue its exploration of fishing capacity issues. The Committee will discuss two proposals that may help alleviate problems caused by excess fishing capacity. These two proposals would allow the transfer of permits under certain conditions. The Committee will also discuss other ways to reduce fishing capacity, such as vessel buybacks, allowing vessels to defer fishing effort until stocks rebuild, or combinations of these and other options. The Committee will receive a qualitative report on fisheries in New England that have excessive fishing capacity.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

Comment Request

The Corporation is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

The AmeriCorps Promise Fellows program supports a leadership cadre of AmeriCorps members spearheading community efforts to provide young people with five basic promises:

• Caring adults in their lives as parents, mentors, tutors, and coaches;

• Safe places with structured activities in which to learn and grow;

• A healthy start;

• An effective education that equips them with marketable skills; and

• An opportunity to give back to communities through their own service.

The AmeriCorps Promise Fellows Continuation Application Instructions provide the requirements, instructions and forms that current grantees of the program need to complete an application to the Corporation for continued funding.

The Corporation seeks public comment on the forms, the instructions for the forms, and the instructions for the narrative portion of these continuation application instructions.

Type of Review: New collection.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: AmeriCorps Promise Fellows Continuation Application Instructions.

OMB Number: None.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Entities in their second or third year of operation as grantees of the Corporation's AmeriCorps Promise Fellows program.

Total Respondents: 66.

Frequency: Once per year.

Average Time Per Response: 25 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,650 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

The revised schedules are based on changes in the Poverty Guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), published in 65 FR 7555, February 15, 2000. In accordance with program regulations, the income eligibility level for each State, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia is 125 percent of the DHHS Poverty Guidelines, except in those areas determined by the Corporation to be of higher cost of living as of March 1, 2000. In such instances, the guidelines shall be 135 percent of the DHHS Poverty levels. The level of eligibility is rounded to the next highest multiple of $5.00.

In determining income eligibility, consideration should be given to the following, as set forth in 45 CFR 2551-2553 dated October 1, 1999.

Allowable medical expenses are annual out-of-pocket expenses for health insurance premiums, health care services, and medications provided to the applicant, enrollee, or spouse and were not and will not be paid for by Medicare, Medicaid, other insurance, or by any other third party and, must not exceed 15 percent of the applicable Corporation income guideline.

Annual income is counted for the past 12 months and includes: The applicant or enrollee's income and the applicant or enrollee's spouse's income, if the spouse lives in the same residence. Sponsors must count the value of shelter, food, and clothing, if provided at no cost by persons related to the applicant, enrollee or spouse.

Any person whose income is not more than 100 percent of the DHHS Poverty Guideline for her/his specific family unit shall be given special consideration for participation in the Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion Programs.

The income eligibility levels specified above are based on 135 percent of the DHHS poverty guidelines and are applicable to the following high cost metropolitan statistical areas and primary metropolitan statistical areas:

The revised income eligibility levels presented here are calculated from the base DHHS Poverty Guidelines now in effect as follows:

These funds are authorized under the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended, and represent the statute's population-based provision of program assistance formula funds that, in most cases, flow through approved state commissions on national and community service. Because neither North Dakota nor South Dakota currently maintains an approved state commission or alternative administrative entity, eligible entities may apply directly to the Corporation for formula funds. Local government agencies, institutions of higher education, public or private nonprofit organizations, and Indian Tribes in North Dakota and South Dakota are eligible entities. An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4), that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible for these funds.

Requirements relating to this assistance are published at 45 CFR Parts 2510 et seq. and are further described in the application guidelines. The Corporation will also provide Principles for High Quality National Service Programs, which includes program examples, upon request.

Organizations interested in applying for these program funds may participate in one of two conference calls to be held on April 3, 2000 and April 10, 2000, respectively, during which Corporation staff will provide technical assistance to potential applicants. The calls will begin at 2:00 p.m. and conclude at 4:00 p.m. (E.D.T.). Upon registration for one of the calls, you will be provided with the applicable 800 number needed for participation.

The provision of these grants is subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Title 10 U.S.C., Sections 504, 505, 508, 12102 and 520a, Title 14 U.S.C., Sections 351 and 632, and Title 50 U.S.C., Section 451, requires applicants to meet standards for enlistment into the Armed Forces. This information collection is the basis for determining eligibility of applicants for enlistment in the Armed Forces and is needed to verify data given by the applicant and to determin his/her qualification of enlistment. The information collected aids in the determination of qualifications, term of service, and grade in which a person, if eligible, will enter active duty or reserve status.

A. Background

Health care for retirees and their family members, to include Medicare-eligible military retirees and family members, is now available under the Designated Provider program. When DoD transitioned the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities to the Designated Provider program providing the TRICARE Prime benefit in 1998, the Department and the Designated Providers agreed by contract to limit enrollment of retirees and their family members to once per year. In accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Section 707, the Department of Defense and the Designated Providers randomly selected three sites to actively participate in a continuous open enrollment demonstration that would allow retiree and retiree family members to enroll in the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan without regard to an annual open enrollment season. The remaining four Designated Providers will be control sites. The selected sites will comply with all provisions for their existing contracts and through a modification to the contracts, allow retirees and their family members to enroll at any time during the demonstration period. These enrollees will comply with existing managed care program policies and requirements for the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan.

(1) Location of Project: Continuous open enrollment will be conducted in the geographical service area of the Sisters of Charity Health Care System located on Staten Island, New York; the Brighton Marine Health Center located in Boston, Massachusetts; and the Pacific Medical Center located in Seattle, Washington. The control group is a geographic service area operated by Martin's Point Health Care located in Portland, Maine; Johns Hopkins Medical Services Corporation located in Baltimore, Maryland; CHRISTUS Health located in Houston, Texas; and Fairview Health System located in Cleveland, Ohio. The geographical service area is identified by zip codes in and around the Designated Providers' corporate centers.

(2) Continuous Open Enrollment Schedule: Health care delivery is scheduled to begin on February 1, 2000, for the Sisters of Charity Health Care System and the Brighton Marine Health Center. Pacific Medical Center will begin providing health care services on March 1, 2000. Prior to the beginning of health care delivery under this demonstration, the participating Designated Providers will issue public announcements providing information about the program and the enrollment process. The public announcements will indicate that an application acceptance period will begin in January 2000. The demonstration will continue until September 30, 2000.

(3) Eligible population: To be eligible to enroll in this demonstration a military retiree or their family member must, (1) be eligible for care from DoD, (2) reside within geographic service area of participating Designated Providers, and (3) be solely reliant for health care services from the Military Health System and/or Title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

(4) Enrollment capacity: Under this demonstration there is no limitation on the number of eligible beneficiaries that may enroll in the Designated Providers' Uniformed Services Family Health Plan. Enrollment outside the demonstration is limited to 110 percent of enrollment as of the first day of the previous fiscal year.

(5) Enrollment: Enrollment applications will be accepted by mail or in person at an address designated by the participating Designated Providers. The enrollment fee is currently $230 for single enrollee and maximum of $460 for a family. It is the Department's policy to encourage enrollment in Medicare Part B. Therefore, enrollment fees for Medicare-eligible enrollees that maintain their Medicare Part B monthly premiums are waived under the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan.

Enrollment under the demonstration is for a twelve-month period, which is automatically renewed annually. Beneficiaries may leave the program at the end of their twelve-month period by affirmatively requesting disenrollment approximately 60 calendar days prior to automatic renewal. Enrollees discontinuing their enrollment prior to any twelve-month period are locked out of further enrollment in DoD's TRICARE program for a period of twelve months from the effective date of their disenrollment. Portability, transfers, and split family enrollments exist between TRICARE regions and contractors, although portability and transfers for Medicare-eligible enrollees limited to Designated Provider geographic service areas.

As a condition of enrollment, each dual-eligible beneficiary will be required to receive all of his or her health care services, except emergency care, through the Designated Provider program.

The goal of the Designated Provider demonstration project is to allow retired beneficiaries and their dependents the opportunity to enroll throughout the program year. The evaluation will document the benefits of open enrollment opportunities to covered beneficiaries and the cost impact upon the Department of Defense, as well as a recommendation on whether to authorize open enrollments in the managed care plans of the Designated Providers permanently.

The proposed amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial are as follows:

Amend R.C.M 201(f)(2)(B)(i) to read as follows:

Amend R.C.M 201(f)(2)(B)(ii) to read as follows:

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 201(f) by inserting the following before the discussion of subsection (3):

Amend the seventh paragraph of the Discussion accompanying R.C.M. 601(e)(1) to read as follows:

Amend the first paragraph of the Discussion accompanying R.C.M. 808 to read as follows:

The Office of the Secretary systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on March 23, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 214. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the Federal Register now constitute the only notification of revisions in per diem rates to agencies and establishments outside the Department of Defense. For more information or questions about per diem rates, please contact your local travel office. The Text of the Bulletin follows:

The Department of the Navy's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act was submitted on March 23, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (61 FR 6427, February 20, 1996).

The Department of the Navy's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act was submitted on March 23, 2000, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (61 FR 6427, February 20, 1996).

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Annual Performance Report for the Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math/Science, and Veterans Upward Bound Programs.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 1.

 Burden Hours: 9,000.

Abstract: Upward Bound grantees must submit the report annually. The reports are used to evaluate the performance of grantees prior to awarding continuation funds and to assess a grantee's prior experience at the end of each budget period. The Department will also aggregate the data to provide descriptive information on the programs and to analyze the impact of the program on the academic progress of participating students.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 5624, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at (202) 708-9266 or via his internet address Joe_Schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Federal Pell Grant Program Recipient Financial Management System (RFMS).

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; Businesses or other for-profit; Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 5,660.

 Burden Hours: 396,200.

Abstract: The Federal Pell Grant Program provides grants to eligible students based on financial need to meet the costs of postsecondary education. The new RFMS modernizes the Federal Pell Grant Program and institutions report data and request funds through RFMS.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 5624, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at (202) 708-9266 or via his internet address Joe_Schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 1,200.

 Burden Hours: 30,000.

Abstract: Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act discretionary grants are authorized to support research and technology, personnel preparation, parent training, and information and technical assistance activities. This grant application provides the forms and information necessary for applicants to submit an application for funding, and information for use by technical reviewers to determine the quality of application.

This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5624, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila_Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

DOE RFFO is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of applications/proposals if an award is not made. If an award is made, such costs may be allowable as provided in the applicable cost principles.

With this publication; DOE RFFO is announcing the availability of up to $300,000 in grant funds for fiscal year 2000. RFFO anticipates that four or less grants will be made for a total not to exceed $300,000. The awards will be made through a competitive process. Projects may cover a period of up to 5 years funding for out-years is dependent on appropriation from Congress. Length of awards may vary by applicant.

Eligible applicants for the purposes of funding under this notice include organizations and institutions residing in Colorado proposing to implement minority science and engineering projects in Colorado as described in the summary section of this announcement. Applicants are encouraged to propose project cost-sharing or sharing of in-kind services or resources. The awards will be made through a competitive process to organizations and institutions located in the State of Colorado. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number assigned to this program is 81.116.

All responsive Applications will be reviewed by a panel composed of Department of Energy RFFO representatives. Successful proposal(s) will be selected on the opinion of panel members of proposals most able to meet the objectives best able to meet the needs of this office.

Proposals must demonstrate and will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

1. Implementation plan demonstrates experience, qualifications, capabilities, and resources necessary to successfully accomplish the proposed activities. (25%)

2. Exhibits sound administrative and financial management practices. (25%)

• Ability and willingness to perform all administrative requirements of the grant.

• The relationship between direct and indirect costs, and other financial aspects of the proposed grant, demonstrates sound financial practices.

• Cost effectiveness of projects.

3. Relationship of the proposed project to the objectives of the solicitation. (25%)

4. Qualifications of key personnel. (10%)

• Adequacy of availability and level of expertise of proposed personnel resources.

• Level of expertise of key personnel as demonstrated in resumes containing relevant education, training, and experience (resumes should include relevant project work previously conducted by individuals of the team).

5. Successful past performance of similar projects. (15%)

• Proposals lacking records of relevant past performance will receive a neutral score.

DOE RFFO hereby reserves the right to fund, in part or whole, any, all, or none of the proposals submitted in response to this request. All applicants will be notified in writing of the action taken on their applications. Applicants should allow approximately 90 days for DOE evaluation. The status of any application during the evaluation and selection process will not be discussed with applicants. Unsuccessful applications will not be returned to the applicant.

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

On August 25, 1999, the FTC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments from the public concerning the collection of information from: (1) members of the motion picture, music recording, and video and personal computer game industries and (2) consumers. See 64 FR 46392. The second PRA notice for the industry surveys was published on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63046). OMB approved that collection of information on December 21, 1999 for use through December 31, 2002. This is the second PRA notice regarding the collection of information from consumers.

The FTC received one comment regarding its proposed consumer research from the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA). The IDSA recommended that the Commission put out for public comment any survey instrument used to assess consumer attitudes toward and awareness of the IDSA's Entertainment Software Rating Board program and that any such research survey only those who actually buy or play video games. Consistent with the requirements of the PRA, the survey instruments used to study consumer attitudes toward and awareness of the various rating or labeling systems will be made available to interested parties upon request to Commission staff. Moreover, only children whose parents say their children play electronic games will be asked to answer surveys regarding video or personal computer games. The same approach will be taken for surveying children about their experiences regarding motion pictures and music recordings.

The FTC proposes to conduct a telephone survey of 750 parents having a child aged 11 to 16 and to survey 400 children aged 11 to 16 in order to gather specific information on their perceptions of the entertainment rating or labeling systems. This information will be collected on a voluntary basis, and the identities of the consumers will remain confidential. The FTC will contract with a consumer research firm to select consumers and conduct the surveys. Survey results will help the FTC assess whether and how consumers use the rating or labeling systems of the motion picture, recording, and electronic games industries.

The FTC will contract with a survey firm to: (1) Identify and survey 750 parents with children aged 11 to 16; and (2) survey 400 children aged 11 to 16.

The contractor first will ask screener questions of approximately 5,000 parents in order to provide a large enough random sample for the parent telephone survey. After a parent completes the telephone survey, the contractor will ask the parent whether a child in the household aged 11 to 16 may also participate in it.

The FTC staff estimates that the screening for the survey will consume no more than one minute of each respondent's time. In addition, the FTC will pretest the parent survey on approximately 50 respondents to ensure that all questions are easily understood. This pretest will take approximately 15 minutes per person. Answering the parent survey will take approximately 15 minutes per respondent. Answering the children survey also will impose an individual burden of approximately 15 minutes.

Thus, total hours burden attributable to the consumer research will approximate 383 hours, determined as follows:

The cost per respondent should be negligible. Participation is voluntary, and will not require any labor expenditures by respondents. There are no capital, start-up, operation, maintenance, or other similar costs to the respondents.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Section 3.25(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 3.25(f), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 29, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at “http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/formal.htm.” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 3 1/2 inch diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement for entry of a consent order from Dura Lube Corporation, Inc., American Direct Marketing, Inc., Howe Laboratories, Inc., Crescent Marketing, Inc. (d/b/a Crescent Manufacturing, Inc.), National Communications Corporation, The Media Group, Inc., and Herman S. Howard and Scott Howard, the principals who control these corporations (referred to collectively as “Respondents”). The agreement would settle a complaint by the Federal Trade Commission that Respondents engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns advertising representations made about Super Dura Lube Engine Treatment and Advanced Dura Lube Engine Treatment (referred to collectively as “Dura Lube”), engine oil additives. The administrative complaint alleged that Respondents violated the FTC Act by disseminating ads that made unsubstantiated performance claims about Dura Lube. The Complaint alleged that Respondents represented that, compared to motor oil alone or oil treated with any other product, Dura Lube: (1) Reduces engine wear; (2) reduces engine wear by more than 50%; (3) prolongs engine life; (4) reduces emissions; (5) reduces the risk of serious engine damage when oil pressure is lost; (6) improves gas mileage; and (7) improves gas mileage by up to 35%. The Complaint alleged that one treatment continues to protect engines for up to 50,000 miles. The Complaint alleged that Respondents represented that they had a reasonable basis for making these claims, but in fact did not possess competent evidence supporting them.

The Complaint also challenged, as false, claims that tests prove that, compared to motor oil alone, Dura Lube: (1) Reduces engine wear; (2) prolongs engine life; (3) reduces emissions; (4) reduces the risk of serious engine damage when oil pressure is lost; (5) improves gas mileage; and (6) improves gas mileage by up to 35%. The Complaint also challenged as false claims that tests prove that one treatment continues to protect engines for up to 50,000 miles. Additionally, the Complaint challenged, as false, claims that Dura Lube: (a) Has been tested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (b) contains no chlorinated compound.

The Complaint alleged that Respondents represented that product demonstrations in their advertising proved, demonstrated, or confirmed that, (1) compared to motor oil alone, Dura Lube reduces the risk of serious engine damage when oil pressures is lost, and (b) without Dura Lube, motor oil fails to protect automobile engines under hot running conditions, when in fact the demonstrations do not prove, demonstrate, or confirm these product attributes. Finally, the Complaint alleged that Respondents represented that former astronaut Charles “Pete” Conrad had endorsed the product based on a valid exercise of his expertise in the evaluation of automobile engine lubricants, when in fact Mr. Conrad did not have expertise in the evaluation and testing of automobile engine lubration.

The Complaint gave notice that the Commission had reason to believe that a proceeding under section 19 of the FTC Act for consumer redress ultimately might be appropriate, depending upon the adjudicative record and other relevant factors.

The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Respondents from engaging in acts and practices similar to those alleged in the complaint in the future. Part I of the proposed consent order prohibits Respondents from falsely claiming that Dura Lube contains no chlorinated compound or that it has been tested by the Environmental Protection Agency. It also prohibits them from claiming that Dura Lube meets the requirements or standards of any governmental or standard setting organization unless they possess competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence, substantiating the claim.

Part II of the proposed consent order prohibits Respondents from making unsubstantiated representations regarding the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of any product for use in an automobile, or from misrepresenting the results of any study. It specifically prohibits unsubstantiated claims that, compared to motor oil alone or oil treated with any other product, the product reduces engine wear or reduces it by any percentage, dollar or other figure; prolongs engine life; reduces emissions; reduces the risk of serious engine damage when oil pressure is lost; or improves gas mileage or improves it by any percentage, miles per gallon, dollar or other figure. It also prohibits unsubstantiated claims that one treatment reduces engine wear for 50,000 or any other number of miles. The evidence required to substantiate such claims includes competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence.

Part III of the proposed consent order prohibits Respondents from using misleading demonstrations in the sale of any product.

Part IV of the proposed consent order prohibits Respondents from representing that any endorser of any product for use in a motor vehicle is an expert unless the endorser possesses the expertise he or she is represented to have and the endorsement is adequately supported by evidence that would be accepted by experts in the area.

Part X of the proposed consent order requires Respondents to pay $2 million in consumer redress. The Federal Trade Commission would administer and distribute the redress as the Commission, in its sole discretion, deemed appropriate. Respondents would be required to provide the Commission with the identities of consumers known to have purchased Dura Lube between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1999. Consumers electing to accept the redress would release any claims against Respondents.

The remainder of the proposed consent order also contains provisions regarding distribution of the order, replacement of product packaging and labeling with compliant packaging and labeling, record-keeping, notification of changes in corporate status, termination of the order, and the filing of a compliance report.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and the proposed order or to modify their terms in any way.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Section 3.25(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 3.25(f), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 29, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at “http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/formal.htm.” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 3 1/2 inch diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement to a proposed consent order from Motor Up Corporation, Inc., Motor Up America, Inc., and Kyle Burns, the principal who controls these corporations (referred to collectively as “Motor Up”). The agreement would settle a complaint by the Federal Trade Commission that Motor Up engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for reception of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter concerns representations made about Motor Up No Oil Change Engine Treatment Concentrate, an engine oil additive, in advertising. The administrative complaint alleged that Motor Up violated the FTC Act by disseminating ads that made unsubstantiated performance claims about the oil additive. The Complaint alleged that the respondents represented that, compared to motor oil alone, Motor Up: (1) Reduces engine wear; (2) reduces engine wear by up to 50 percent; (3) reduces adhesive engine wear by up to 90.17 percent; (4) reduces engine wear during cold starts; (5) provides more protection against engine wear in cold temperatures; (6) extends the duration of engine life; and (7) helps prevent engine breakdowns. The Complaint also alleged that respondents represented that Motor Up: (1) Prevents corrosion in engines; (2) will not drain out from the engine even when the oil is changed; (3) protects engines for up to 50,000 miles; and (4) protects against engine wear even without motor oil. The Complaint alleged that respondents represented that they had a reasonable basis for making these claims, but in fact did not possess competent evidence supporting the claims. The Complaint alleged that respondents claimed that tests prove that, compared to motor oil alone, Motor Up reduces engine wear by up to 50 percent without possessing tests that prove the claim. The Complaint also alleged that respondents represented that product demonstrations in their advertising proved, demonstrated, or confirmed that Motor UP prevents corrosion in engines and that, compared to motor oil alone, Motor Up helps prevent breakdowns and reduces engine wear, when in fact the demonstrations do not prove, demonstrate, or confirm these product attributes.

The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Motor UP from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Part I of the proposed consent order prohibits Motor Up from making any claims about any engine treatment, fuel treatment, motor oil, grease, transmission fluid, or brake fluid, and any additive intended for use with or as a substitute for these products, unless Motor Up can support the claims with competent and reliable evidence. Part I specifies certain specific claims and states that these and all other claims must be supported by evidence. It also states that the evidence required to support claims may be competent and reliable scientific evidence.

Parts II prohibits Motor Up from misrepresenting in advertising the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test or study dealing with the Motor Up engine oil additive or any other motor vehicle product.

Part III prohibits Motor Up from using false demonstrations. It prohibits Motor Up from representing that any demonstration, picture, experiment, illustration or test of the Motor Up engine oil additive or any other motor vehicle product proves, demonstrates or confirms the product's attributes unless the demonstration, picture, experiment, illustration or tests does in fact prove, demonstrate, or confirm the attributes. This provision applies to all demonstrations of product attributes, including comparisons with other products.

The proposed order also contains provisions regarding distribution of the order, recordkeeping, notification of changes in corporate status, termination of the order, and the filing of a compliance report.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and the proposed order or to modify their terms in any way.

The regulations governing the rental certificate and rental voucher programs are published at 24 CFR 982. The regulations for allocating housing assistance budget authority under Section 213(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 are published at 24 CFR Part 791, Subpart D.

The purpose of the rental voucher and rental certificate programs is to assist eligible families to pay the rent for decent, safe, and sanitary housing. The FY 99 awardees announced in this notice were provided Section 8 funds on an as needed basis, i.e., not consistent with the provisions of a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFAs). Announcements of awards provided consistent with NOFA published on March 8, 1999 (64 FR 11277, 11294, 11310, and 11302) will be published in a separate Federal Register notice.

Awards published under this notice were provided to assist families living in HUD-owned properties that are being sold; to assist families affected by the expiration or termination of assistance; to provide relocation and replacement housing in connection with the demolition of public housing; to assist families in properties where the owner has prepaid the HUD mortgage; to partially fulfill the Department's obligations in settlement decrees for various lawsuits; and to provide mobility counseling and assistance to families so that they may move to areas that have low racial and ethnic concentrations.

A total of $185,666,931 in budget authority for rental vouchers and rental certificates (30,098 units) was awarded to recipients under all of the above mentioned categories.

In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of those awards as shown in Appendix A.

In 1982, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) to restrict Federal spending that could foster development of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. In the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-591), Congress amended the Act to broaden the definition of a coastal barrier, and approved a series of maps entitled “Coastal Barrier Resources System” dated October 24, 1990. These maps identify and depict those coastal barriers located on the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes and in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands that are subject to the Federal funding limitations outlined in the Act. The 1990 Act also approved a related series of maps depicting otherwise protected areas (OPA) along the same coastlines. In full System units most forms of Federal subsidies are prohibited. In OPAs only Federal flood insurance is prohibited.

The Act also defines our responsibilities regarding the System and OPA maps. We have official custody of these maps and prepare and distribute copies of them. We published a notice of the filing, distribution, and availability of the maps dated October 24, 1990, in the Federal Register on June 6, 1991 (56 FR 26304-26312). We have announced all subsequent map revisions in the Federal Register .

Section 1(a) of Public Law 106-128, enacted on December 6, 1999, requires us to revise the map depicting a specific OPA (designated as DE-03P) in Sussex County, Delaware. The changes to Cape Henlopen Unit DE-03P will add State park land to the OPA and remove privately owned land outside of the park.

The Service is sending copies of the revised map to the House of Representatives Committee on Resources and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and to each appropriate Federal, State, and local agency having jurisdiction over the areas in which the modified unit is located.

You can purchase copies of System and OPA maps from the U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Science Information Center, P.O. Box 25286, Denver, Colorado 80225. The cost is $4.00 per map, plus a $3.50 shipping and handling fee for the entire order. Maps can also be viewed at the following Fish and Wildlife Service offices:

In 1982, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) to restrict Federal spending that could foster development of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. In the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-591), Congress amended the Act to broaden the definition of a coastal barrier, and approved a series of maps entitled “Coastal Barrier Resources System” dated October 24, 1990. These maps identify and depict those coastal barriers located on the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes and in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands that are subject to the Federal funding limitations outlined in the Act. The 1990 Act also approved a related series of maps depicting otherwise protected areas (OPA) along the same coastlines. In full System units most forms of Federal subsidies are prohibited. In OPAs only Federal flood insurance is prohibited.

The Act also defines our responsibilities regarding the System and OPA maps. We have official custody of these maps and prepare and distribute copies of them. We published a notice of the filing, distribution, and availability of the maps dated October 24, 1990, in the Federal Register on June 6, 1991 (56 FR 26304-26312). We have announced all subsequent map revisions in the Federal Register .

Section 1(a) of Public Law 106-16, enacted on November 29, 1999, requires us to replace 7 maps relating to the System with 14 new maps. These changes affect a Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit (designated as L03) and an OPA (designated as NC-03P) in Dare County, North Carolina. The changes to the Cape Hatteras NC-03P are designed to coincide with the boundary of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The changes to Hatteras Island Unit L03 are designed to meet the original intent of Congress.

The Service has given copies of the revised System and OPA maps to the House of Representatives Committee on Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and will be sending copies to the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Financial Services and each appropriate Federal, State, and local agency having jurisdiction over the areas in which the modified units are located.

You can purchase copies of System and OPA maps from the U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Science Information Center, P.O. Box 25286, Denver, Colorado 80225. The cost is $4.00 per map, plus a $3.50 shipping and handling fee for the entire order. Maps can also be viewed at the following Fish and Wildlife Service offices:

The objectives of the EIS will be to study and assess the impacts of additional Fruitland CBM drilling and development within the described area of southwestern Colorado. Potential impacts of the proposed action involve various natural and human resources including, geology, water resources, biological ( e.g., threatened and endangered species) wildlife, cultural, visual, land use, suburban interface and subdivisions, socioeconomic and others that are identified through the scoping process.

The proposed action will involve federal jurisdictions of the BLM and Forest Service. Two Record of Decisions, one by the BLM and one by the Forest Service will be issued. Much of the BLM jurisdiction is split estate land (where the mineral owner is not the same as the surface owner). Because of the large proportion of private mineral and surface estate contained in the proposed action, La Plata County will participate on this EIS as a Cooperating Agency. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission will be an active, though informal, contributor. A memorandum of agreement is anticipated between the BLM, USFS, and La Plata County.

The BLM and Forest Service will issue interim criteria for those proposed Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) received prior to the completion of the EIS and the two Record of Decisions (ROD's). The interim criteria will define those actions that would not limit the choice of reasonable alternatives and thus may be approved; as well as define those actions that may preclude future options and therefore may not be approved during preparation of the EIS and ROD's. The interim criteria will be subject to their own 30-day public comment period.

It is anticipated that the EIS process will take 24 months to complete and will include public information and meetings. Publication of the two ROD's is anticipated in March 2002. Public information, scoping meetings, and request for input on the EIS will begin with publication of this notice. Written comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2000.

The May 11, 2000 meeting will be held at the Gunnison County Fairgrounds Multipurpose Building, 275 South Spruce Street in Gunnison, Colorado. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and at approximately 4:30 p.m. The morning agenda will focus on the implementation of BLM Colorado Standards for public land health and Guidelines for livestock grazing and the Gunnison Sage Grouse Conservation Plan. General public comment is scheduled for 9:15 a.m. A field trip to nearby grazing allotments is scheduled during the afternoon session. The public is invited to accompany the RAC on the field trip but will need to provide their own transportation; a four wheel drive vehicle is recommended.

Summary minutes for Council meetings are maintained in the Southwest Center Office and on the World Wide Web at http://www.co.blm.gov/mdo/mdo_sw_rac.htm and are available for public inspection and reproduction within thirty (30) days following each meeting.

On December 17, 1998, Sierra filed a right-of-way application with the BLM for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an approximately 165-185 mile long 345 kV electric transmission line that would connect the Falcon substation (north of Dunphy, Nevada) with the Gonder substation (north of Ely, Nevada). The project would improve electricity import and export capabilities to meet anticipated growth in Sierra's system.

The project, as currently proposed, identifies several route alternatives. The northern portion of any route would head south from the Falcon substation to Highway 50 near Eureka along one of several possible alignments. The southern portion of any route alternatives would then head east along Highway 50 to follow an existing Sierra 230 kV line to the Gonder substation. The current alternatives are identified as the: Crescent Valley A, Crescent Valley B, Pine Valley A, Pine Valley B, and Buck Mountain alternatives. The no action alternative will also be analyzed.

As part of the proposed action, the BLM is also considering amending the RMPs for the Shoshone-Eureka Resource Area, Elko Resource Area, and Egan Resource Area to establish possible right-of-way utility corridors in the area of the preferred alignment. Amendments to the Shoshone-Eureka RMP may also include deletion of a utility planning corridor.

Initially, it was not determined what level of NEPA analysis would be required for the Falcon to Gonder project. In July 1999, the BLM determined that an EIS would be necessary to comply with NEPA. In March 2000, the BLM determined that it would be appropriate to analyze possible RMP amendments concurrently with this project. With these changes in the scope of the project, BLM felt it was important to conduct another round of scoping meetings to address public concerns related to the proposed action.

Previous public involvement opportunities included a 30 day scoping period and three public meetings. These meetings were held on the following dates and locations:

Carlin City Hall Court Room, 101 South 8th Street, Carlin, Nevada on June 15, 1999, Eureka Opera House, 31 South Main Street, Eureka, Nevada on June 16, 1999, and BLM Ely Field Office, 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, Nevada on June 17, 1999.

Public comments from the previous scoping meetings will be compiled and incorporated in the EIS, along with comments from the upcoming scoping meetings.

Sections 103(c), (i), and (j) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 authorize the recordkeeping and reporting requirements implemented in 30 CFR 57, Subpart T-Safety Standards for Methane in Metal and Nonmetal mines. Methane is a flammable gas found in underground mining. Methane is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas, and it tends to rise to the roof of a mine because it is lighter than air. Although methane itself is nontoxic, its presence reduces the oxygen content by dilution when mixed with air, and consequently can act as an asphyxiant when present in large quantities. Methane mixed with air is explosive in the range of 5 to 15 percent, provided that 12 percent or more oxygen is present. The presence of dust containing volatile matter in the mine atmosphere may further enhance the explosion potential of methane in a mine.

Metal and Nonmetal mine operators are required to notify MSHA as soon as possible if any of the following events occur: (a) there is an outburst that results in 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere; (b) there is a blowout that results in 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere; (c) there is an ignition of methane; (d) air sample results indicate 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere of a Subcategory I-B, I-C, II-B, V-B, or Category VI mine; If methane reaches 2.0 percent in a Category IV mine; or methane reaches 0.25 percent in the mine atmosphere of a Subcategory I-B, II-B, V-B, and VI mines, MSHA shall be notified immediately. MSHA investigates the occurrence to determine that the mine is placed in the proper category to follow appropriate precautionary standards.

Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the information collection related to the Notification of Methane Detected in Mine Atmospheres. MSHA is particularly interested in comments which:

* 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;

* evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

* enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

* minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

A copy of the proposed information collection request may be viewed on the Internet by accessing the MSHA Home Page ( http://www.msha.gov ) and then choosing “Statutory and Regulatory Information'' and “Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions (http://www.msha.gov/regspwork.htm) Compliance Assistance Information'', or by contacting the employee listed above in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice for a hard copy.

MSHA is seeking an extension of the information collection related to certification and notification of methane detected in mine atmosphere.

Type of Review: Extension.

Agency: Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Title: Notification of Methane Detected in Mine Atmosphere.

OMB Number: 1219-0103.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Recordkeeping: Certification of examinations shall be kept for at least one year.

Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs: $0.

Total Operating and Maintenance: $0.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

The New Mexico-Texas Water Commission, established in 1991 to help meet the water resource challenges of the region, proposed the El Paso-Las Cruces Regional Sustainable Water Project to secure future drinking water supplies from surface sources for the El Paso-Las Cruces region. The project includes the acquisition, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of a drinking water supply, and upgrading or constructing facilities for water conveyance, treatment, distribution, and aquifer storage and recovery. These activities comprise the following three project purposes:

• Provide a year-round drinking water supply from the Rio Grande Project that is of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the anticipated municipal needs of Hatch; Las Cruces; northern and southern Don a Ana County; and El Paso.

• Protect and maintain the sustainability of the Mesilla Bolson (ground water basin or aquifer).

• Extend the longevity of the Hueco Bolson.

• Project alternatives presented in this DEIS were designed to achieve these three project purposes. In addition, the project will strive to meet the following criteria:

• The project should attempt to provide high quality water needed to achieve successful treatment and to meet federal drinking water standards.

• The project should seek to deliver water efficiently, and to promote water conservation.

• The project should provide overall benefits to the riverine ecosystem, particularly aquatic and riparian habitats.

The project recognizes and accepts existing institutional and social constraints. The project would continue to meet treaty, compact, and contract requirements for delivery of Rio Grande Project waters. The project would not adversely affect the quantity and quality of water deliveries to agricultural users; impose new responsibilities on state or federal governments; or preclude other opportunities to enhance the Rio Grande ecosystem.

The need for this project is based on the region's future drinking water supply requirements. The project is necessary to avoid both potentially permanent impacts on the Mesilla and Hueco Bolsons and critical drinking water shortages in the El Paso-Las Cruces region. Population growth rates have increased sharply, increasing the demand for drinking water. It is projected that the Texas portion of the Hueco Bolson will be exhausted of all fresh water by the year 2025 because water is being pumped from the aquifer faster than it can be naturally replenished. If additional surface waters are not made available to supplement the drinking water supply, water shortages in the region will likely lead to severe health and sanitation problems.

A copy of the Draft EIS has been filed with the Environmental Protection Agency EPA in accordance with 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and USIBWC procedures. Written comments concerning the Draft EIS will be accepted at the address provided above until June 13, 2000.

Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs the records to conduct its business. Routine administrative records common to most agencies are approved for disposal in the General Records Schedules (GRS), which are disposition schedules issued by NARA that apply Government-wide.

On March 25, 1999, the Archivist issued NARA Bulletin 99-04, which told agencies what they must do to schedule electronic copies associated with previously scheduled program records and certain administrative records that were previously scheduled under GRS 20, Items 13 and 14. On December 27, 1999, the Archivist issued NARA Bulletin 2000-02, which suspended Bulletin 99-04 pending NARA's completion in FY 2001 of an overall review of scheduling and appraisal. On completion of this review, which will address all records, including electronic copies, NARA will determine whether Bulletin 99-04 should be revised or replaced with an alternative scheduling procedure. However, NARA will accept and process schedules for electronic copies prepared in accordance with Bulletin 99-04 that are submitted after December 27, 1999, as well as schedules that were submitted prior to this date.

Schedules submitted in accordance with NARA Bulletin 99-04 only cover the electronic copies associated with previously scheduled series. Agencies that wish to schedule hitherto unscheduled series must submit separate SF 115s that cover both recordkeeping copies and electronic copies used to create them.

In developing SF 115s for the electronic copies of scheduled records, agencies may use either of two scheduling models. They may add an appropriate disposition for the electronic copies formerly covered by GRS 20, Items 13 and 14, to every item in their manuals or records schedules where the recordkeeping copy has been created with a word processing or electronic mail application. This approach is described as Model 1 in Bulletin 99-04. Alternatively, agencies may group records by program, function, or organizational component and propose disposition instructions for the electronic copies associated with each grouping. This approach is described as Model 2 in the Bulletin. Schedules that follow Model 2 do not describe records at the series level.

For each schedule covered by this notice the following information is provided: name of the Federal agency and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority; the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or a statement that the schedule has agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency; the control number assigned to each schedule; the total number of schedule items; the number of temporary items (the record series proposed for destruction); a brief description of the temporary electronic copies; and citations to previously approved SF 115s or printed disposition manuals that scheduled the recordkeeping copies associated with the electronic copies covered by the pending schedule. If a cited manual or schedule is available from the Government Printing Office or has been posted to a publicly available Web site, this too is noted.

Further information about the disposition process is available on request.

1. Department of Defense, Defense Contract Audit Agency (N9-372-00-1, 158 items, 158 temporary items). Electronic copies of documents created using word processing and electronic mail that pertain to agency programs and operations. Electronic copies relate to such subjects as planning, inspections and investigations, legal matters, relations with the White House and Congress, committee management, historical activities, training, audit policies, and audit administration. This schedule follows Model 2 as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. It also authorizes the agency to apply to any recordkeeping medium the disposition instructions for series that were previously approved for disposal in paper form. Paper copies of the records covered by this schedule are included in Disposition Job Nos. NC-372-75-1, N1-372-89-1, N1-372-90-1, N1-372-90-2, N1-372-93-1, N1-372-94-1, N1-372-94-2, N1-372-94-3, N1-372-95-1, N1-372-95-3, N1-372-96-1, and N1-372-99-1.

2. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (N9-361-00-2, 180 items, 180 temporary items). Electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to agency programs and activities. Included are electronic copies of records relating to command functions, staff support, planning and resource management, telecommunications and information systems, personnel, finance, installation services, defense reutilization and marketing, technical operations, logistics services, quality assurance, contracting, program and technical support, supply and distribution, industrial plant equipment, the defense national stockpile, manufacturing, and alternative fuels. This schedule follows Model 2 as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in Defense Logistics Agency Instruction 5015.1.

Title of Collection: “National Science Foundation Applicant Survey.”

OMB Approval Number: 3145-0096.

Expiration Date of Approval: August 31, 2000.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend with revision an information collection for three years.

Proposed Project: The current National Science Foundation Applicant survey has been in use for several years. Data are collected from applicant pools to examine the racial/sexual/disability composition and to determine the source of information about NSF vacancies.

Use of the Information: Analysis of the applicant pools is necessary to determine if NSF's targeted recruitment efforts are reaching groups that are underrepresented in the Agency's workforce and/or to defend the Foundation's practices in discrimination cases.

Burden on the Public: The Foundation estimates about 5,000 responses annually at 3 minutes per response; this computes to approximately 250 hours annually.