33308 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Notices

codes. Unless expressly authorized by

statute, the disposing Federal agency

cannot restrict the future use of surplus

Government property. As as result, the

local community exercises substantial

control over future use of the property.

For this reason, local land use plans and

zoning affect determination of the

‘‘highest and best use’’ of surplus

Government property.

The DBCRA directed the

Administrator of the General Services

Administration (GSA) to delegate to the

Secretary of Defense authority to

transfer and dispose of base closure

property. Section 2905(b) of the DBCRA

directs the Secretary of Defense to

exercise this authority in accordance

with GSA’s property disposal

regulations, set forth in Part 101–47 of

the FPMR. By letter dated December 20,

1991, the Secretary of Defense delegated

the authority to transfer and dispose of

base closure property closed under the

DBCRA to the Secretaries of the Military

Departments. Under this delegation of

authority, the Secretary of Navy must

follow FPMR procedures for screening

and disposing of real property when

implementing base closures. Only when

Congress has expressly provided

additional authority for disposing of

base closure property, e.g., the economic

development conveyance authority

established in 1993 by Section 2905(b)

of the DBCRA, may Navy apply disposal

procedure other that those in the FPMR.

In Section 2901 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1994, Public Law 103–160,

Congress recognized the economic

hardship occasioned by base closures,

the Federal interest in facilitating

economic recovery of base closure

communities, and the need to identify

and implement reuse and

redevelopment of property closing

installations. In Section 2903(c) or

Public Law 103–160, Congress directed

the Military Departments to consider

each base closure community’s

economic needs and priorities in this

property disposal process. Under

Section 2905(b)(2)(E) of the DBCRA

must consult with local communities

before disposes of base closure property

and must consider local plans

developed for reuse and redevelopment

of the surplus Federal property.

The Department of Defense’s goal, as

set forth in Section 174.4 of the DoD

Rule, is to help base closure

communities achieve rapid economic

recovery through expeditious reuse and

redevelopment of the assets at closing

bases, taking into consideration local

market conditions and locally

developed reuse plans. Thus, the

Department has adopted a consultative

approach with each community to

ensure that property disposal decisions

consider the LRA’s reuse plan and

encourage job creation. As a part of this

cooperative approach, the base closure

community’s interests, as reflected in its

zoning for the area, play a significant

role in determining the range of

alternatives considered in the

environmental analysis for property

disposal. Furthermore, Section

175.(d)(3) of the DoD Rule provides that

the LRA’s plan generally will be used as

the basis for the proposed disposal

action.

The Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40

U.S.C. § 484 (1994), as implemented by

the FPMR, identifies several

mechanisms for disposing of surplus

base closure property: by public benefit

conveyance (FPMR Sec. 101–47.303–2);

by negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 10–

47.304–9) and by competitive sale

(FPMR 101–47.304–7). Additionally, in

Section 2905(b)(4), the DBCRA

established economic development

conveyances as a means of disposing of

surplus base closure property.

The selection of any particular

method of conveyance merely

implements the Federal agency’s

decision to dispose of the property.

Decisions concerning whether to

undertake a public benefit conveyance

or an economic development

conveyance, or to sell property by

negotiation or by competitive bid, are

left to the Federal agency’s discretion.

Selecting a method of disposal

implicates a broad range of factors and

rests solely within the Secretary of the

Navy’s discretion.

Conclusion

The LRA’s proposed reuse of NAS

Agana, reflected in the Reuse Plan, is

consistent with the prescriptions of the

FPMR and Section 174.4 of the DoD

Rule. The LRA has determined in its

Reuse Plan that the property should be

used for various purposes including

commercial aviation, industrial,

commercial, and parks and recreational

activities. The property’s location,

physical characteristics, existing

infrastructure, and use as a civilian

airport make it appropriate for the

proposed uses.

The proposed reuse of NAS Agana

responds to local economic conditions,

promotes rapid economic recovery from

the impact of the Air Station’s closure,

and is consistent with President

Clinton’s Five-Part Plan for Revitalizing

Base Closure Communities, which

emphasizes local economic

redevelopment and creation of new jobs

as the means to revitalize these

communities, 32 C.F.R. Parts 174 and

175, 59 Fed. Reg. 16,123 (1994).

Although the ‘‘No Action’’ Alternative

has less potential for causing adverse

environmental impacts, this Alternative

would not take advantage of the

property’s location, physical

characteristics, and infrastructure.

Additional, it would not foster local

economic redevelopment of the base

and expansion of Guam’s International

Airport.

The acquiring entities, under the

direction of Federal and local agencies

with regulatory authority over protected

resources, will be responsible for

adopting practicable means to avoid or

minimize environmental harm that may

result from implementing the Reuse

Plan.

Accordingly, Navy will dispose of

Naval Air Station Agana in a manner

that is consistent with the Government

of Guam’s Reuse Plan for the property.

Dated: May 9, 2000.

William J. Cassidy, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy

(Conversion and Redevelopment).

[FR Doc. 00–12964 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Education.

SUMMARY: The Leader, Information

Management Group, Office of the Chief

Information Officer invites comments

on the submission for OMB review as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on or before June 22,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attention: Danny Werfel, Desk Officer,

Department of Education, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th

Street, NW, Room 10235, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503 or should be electronically

mailed to the internet address

DWERFEL@OMB.EOP.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Notices 33309

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.

Dated: May 15, 2000.

William Burrow,

Leader, Information Management Group,

Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Office of Postsecondary Education

Type of Review: Reinstatement,

without change, of a previously

approved collection for which approval

has expired.

Title: Financial Report for the

Endowment Challenge Grant Program

(JS).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit

institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour

Burden: Responses: 300; Burden Hours:

900.

Abstract: The financial report requires

investment data from institutions for the

purpose of assessing their progress in

increasing their endowment fund

resources. The data is also used to

monitor compliance with regulatory

provisions.

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 Joe Schubart at

(202) 708–9266. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339.

[FR Doc. 00–12878 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No. 84.326J]

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services; Grant

Applications under the Special

Education—Technical Assistance and

Dissemination to Improve Services and

Results for Children with Disabilities

Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice inviting applications for

new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2000.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of

this program is to provide technical

assistance and information through

programs that support States and local

entities in building capacity to improve

early intervention, educational, and

transitional services and results for

children with disabilities and their

families, and address systemic-change

goals and priorities.

Eligible Applicants: State and local

educational agencies, institutions of

higher education, other public agencies,

private nonprofit organizations, outlying

areas, freely associated States, and

Indian tribes or tribal organizations.

Applications Available: May 31, 2000

Deadline for Transmittal of

Application: July 17, 2000

Deadline for Intergovernmental

Review: September 17, 2000

Estimated Number of Awards: 1

Maximum Award: We will reject and

will not consider an application that

proposes a budget exceeding $1,900,000

for any single budget period of 12

months. The Assistant Secretary may

change the maximum amounts through

a notice published in the Federal

Register.

Project Period: Under this priority, the

Assistant Secretary will make one award

for a cooperative agreement with a

project period of up to 60 months

subject to the requirements of 34 CFR

75.253(a) for continuation awards.

During the second year of the project,

the Assistant Secretary will determine

whether to continue the Center for the

fourth and fifth years of the project

period and will consider in addition to

the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a):

(a) The recommendation of a review

team consisting of three experts selected

by the Assistant Secretary. The services

of the review team, including a two-day

site visit to the project, are to be

performed during the last half of the

project’s second year and may be

included in that year’s evaluation

required under 34 CFR 75.590. Costs

associated with the services to be

performed by the review team must also

be included in the project’s budget for

year two. These costs are estimated to be

approximately $6,000;

(b) The timeliness and effectiveness

with which all requirements of the

negotiated cooperative agreement have

been or are being met by the project; and

(c) The degree to which the project’s

design and technical strategies

demonstrate the dissemination of

significant new knowledge.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The

Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in

34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82,

85, 86, 97, 98, and 99; (b) The selection

criteria for the priority under this

program are drawn from the EDGAR

general selection criteria menu. The

specific selection criteria for this

priority are included in the funding

application packet for the applicable

competition.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86

apply to institutions of higher education

only.

General Requirements: (a) The Project

funded under this notice must make

positive efforts to employ and advance

in employment qualified individuals

with disabilities in project activities (see

Section 606 of IDEA).

(b) Applicants and the grant recipient

funded under this notice must involve

individuals with disabilities or parents

of individuals with disabilities in

planning, implementing, and evaluating

the projects (see Section 661(f)(1)(A) of

IDEA).

(c) The Project funded under this

competition must (1) use current

research-validated practices and

materials, and (2) communicate

appropriately with target audiences,

including young people, families, State

and local agencies, and employers.

(d) The Project funded under this

priority must budget for a two-day

Project Directors’ meeting in

Washington, D.C. during each year of

the project.

(e) Part III of the application

submitted under the priority in this

notice, the application narrative, is

where an applicant addresses the

selection criteria that are used by

reviewers in evaluating the application.

You must limit Part III to the equivalent

of no more than 70 pages using the

following standards: