66200 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

inspection intervals may be approved for the

structural elements specified in the

document listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–114.

Special Flight Permits

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October

27, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28092 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 75 and 350

Direct Grant Programs and Disability

and Rehabilitation Research Projects

and Centers Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to

amend the Education Department

General Administrative Regulations

(EDGAR) and the regulations for the

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). The

proposed amendments to EDGAR would

revise the general selection criteria

concerning project design, services, and

personnel available for use in direct

grant programs. Consistent with the

requirements of section 427 of the

General Education Provisions Act

(GEPA), these amendments would focus

on ensuring that discretionary grant

applicants demonstrate in their

applications the steps they will take to

ensure equitable access to, and

participation in, their federally assisted

programs by members of traditionally

underrepresented groups. The proposed

amendment to the criterion on quality of

project personnel also would add a

mandatory factor measuring the extent

to which the application includes

effective strategies for employing and

advancing in employment qualified

individuals with disabilities in the

proposed project, including the

accessibility of the project’s worksite

and equipment to these individuals. The

Secretary also proposes to include the

latter amendment concerning project

personnel in the regulations providing

selection criteria for certain programs

administered by the NIDRR.

DATES: We must receive your comments

on or before January 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about

these proposed regulations to Julius C.

Cotton, U.S. Department of Education,

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3652,

ROB–3, Washington, DC 20202–4248. If

you prefer to send your comments

through the Internet, use the following

address: comments@ed.gov.

You must include the term ‘‘proposed

selection criteria’’ in the subject line of

your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Julius C. Cotton. Telephone: (202) 708–

8562. If you use a telecommunications

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call

the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternative

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation To Comment

We invite you to submit comments

regarding these proposed regulations

and the potential effect of the use of the

proposed selection criteria in direct

grant programs supported by the

Department.

We invite you to assist us in

complying with the specific

requirements of Executive Order 12866

and its overall requirement of reducing

regulatory burden that might result from

these proposed regulations. Please let us

know of any further opportunities we

should take to reduce potential costs or

increase potential benefits while

preserving the effective and efficient

administration of the Department’s

direct grant programs.

During and after the comment period,

you may inspect all public comments

about these proposed regulations in

room 3652, ROB–3, Seventh & D Streets,

SW., Washington, DC, between the

hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,

Eastern time, Monday through Friday of

each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With

Disabilities in Reviewing the

Rulemaking Record

On request, we will supply an

appropriate aid, such as a reader or

print magnifier, to an individual with a

disability that needs assistance to

review the comments or other

documents in the public rulemaking

record for these proposed regulations. If

you want to schedule an appointment

for this type of aid, you may call (202)

205–8113 or (202) 260–9895. If you use

a TDD, you may call the Federal

Information Relay Service at 1–800–

877–8339.

Background

The Department of Education’s

mission is to ensure equal access to

education and promote educational

excellence throughout the nation. To

ensure that these goals are being met in

Department-funded discretionary grant

programs, we are proposing several

changes to the list of general selection

criteria and factors in EDGAR. These

EDGAR criteria and factors are used by

most programs of the Department. Many

programs do not have separate criteria

and rely entirely on EDGAR criteria.

Other programs have separate regulatory

criteria. EDGAR authorizes the programs

with separate criteria to use program

criteria (and statutory criteria) in

conjunction with the EDGAR criteria to

evaluate applications. As a result, these

amendments would affect most

programs of the Department. We

propose to amend the NIDRR

regulations which do not incorporate

the EDGAR provision that permits the

use of both EDGAR and program

criteria.

The proposed changes stem from two

related departmental efforts that have

the common goal of ensuring equity and

excellence in Department-funded grant

projects. The first effort relates to

current requirements found in section

427 of the General Education Provisions

Act (GEPA) (20 U.S.C. 1228a), which

was enacted by Congress in 1994.

Section 427 of GEPA requires that each

applicant for a Department grant

include in its application a description

of the steps the applicant proposes to

take to ensure equitable access to, and

participation in, its federally assisted

programs for students, teachers, and

other program beneficiaries with special

needs by addressing barriers to that

access and participation, including

barriers based on gender, race, national

origin, color, disability, or age. The

Secretary is prepared to provide

technical assistance to applicants in

connection with meeting the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66201

requirements of section 427 of GEPA

and with the selection criteria in this

notice of proposed rulemaking.

Although grant applicants currently

provide statements in their applications

indicating how they will ensure

equitable access and participation, we

believe that greater emphasis should be

placed on how well the applicants

address the GEPA 427 requirements.

Under the proposed changes,

discretionary grant applicants for

programs using the EDGAR list of

selection criteria would be rated based

on the extent to which their grant

applications include an effective project

design and project services for ensuring

equitable access and participation.

These factors also would be amended to

more closely track the language in

section 427 of GEPA. They would be

mandatory factors under their respective

criteria.

The second effort involves a similar

concern relating to the diversity of

project staff who carry out funded

projects. Current provisions in EDGAR

include—under the criterion for project

personnel—a mandatory factor for

considering the extent to which the

applicant encourages applications for

employment from persons who are

members of groups that have been

traditionally underrepresented. The

Secretary is concerned that inadequate

attention has been given by many

grantees to the employment and

advancement of individuals with

disabilities. Therefore, this proposal

would strengthen these current

provisions as they relate to employment

and advancement of these individuals

and to the provision of accessible

worksites and equipment for persons

with disabilities. Section 606 of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA) requires the Secretary to

ensure that each recipient of assistance

under IDEA makes positive efforts to

employ and advance in employment

qualified individuals with disabilities.

We believe that—in promoting

excellence and equity in Departmentfunded projects—this is an appropriate

factor to be evaluated in making

competitive selections not only under

IDEA, but also in other Department

programs. Therefore—under the

Secretary’s general rulemaking

authority—we are proposing that the

existing criterion on quality of project

personnel be amended to add a factor

that focuses specifically on individuals

with disabilities, consistent with the

provisions in section 606 of the IDEA.

For Department programs using the

revised EDGAR criterion on quality of

project personnel, applicants would be

rated on how well their application

demonstrates effective strategies for

employing and advancing in

employment qualified individuals with

disabilities in the proposed project.

These strategies also include those for

the provision of accessible worksites

and equipment. In applying this

criterion, the Secretary, as appropriate,

would also consider the applicant’s past

success in employing and advancing in

employment individuals with

disabilities. The latter consideration

would be inappropriate, for example, for

a newly formed private, nonprofit

organization.

Within the Office of Special

Education and Rehabilitative Services,

NIDRR supports specialized disabilityrelated activities and uses selection

criteria found in 34 CFR part 350 rather

than the general EDGAR selection

criteria. A similar factor is proposed for

addition to part 350 to be used in

administering NIDRR programs.

Executive Order 12866

Clarity of the Regulations

Executive Order 12866 and the

President’s Memorandum of June 1,

1998, on ‘‘Plain Language in

Government Writing’’ require each

agency to write regulations that are easy

to understand.

The Secretary invites comments on

how to make these proposed regulations

easier to understand, including answers

to questions such as the following:

• Are the requirements in the

proposed regulations clearly stated?

• Do the proposed regulations contain

technical terms or other wording that

interferes with their clarity?

• Does the format of the proposed

regulations (grouping and order of

sections, use of headings, paragraphing,

etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?

• Would the proposed regulations be

easier to understand if we divided them

into more (but shorter) sections? (A

‘‘section’’ is preceded by the symbol

‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered heading; for

example, § 75.210 General selection

criteria.)

• Could the description of the

proposed regulations in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

this preamble be more helpful in

making the proposed regulations easier

to understand? If so, how?

• What else could we do to make the

proposed regulations easier to

understand?

Send any comments that concern how

the Department could make these

proposed regulations easier to

understand to the person listed in the

ADDRESSES section of the preamble.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The Secretary certifies that these

proposed regulations would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The small entities affected would be

applicants for the Department’s direct

grant programs. The proposed

regulations would not have a significant

economic impact on any small entities

but are expected to benefit all applicants

by reducing delays in the grant award

process that otherwise would be caused

by rulemaking necessary to establish

special selection criteria for individual

competitions.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

These proposed regulations do not

contain any information collection

requirements.

Intergovernmental Review

Some of the programs that are affected

by these regulations are subject to the

requirements of Executive Order 12372

and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

One of the objectives of the Executive

order is to foster an intergovernmental

partnership and a strengthened

federalism. The Executive order relies

on processes developed by State and

local governments for coordination and

review of proposed Federal financial

assistance.

This document provides early

notification of our specific plans and

actions for these programs.

Assessment of Educational Impact

The Secretary particularly requests

comments on whether these proposed

regulations would require transmission

of information that any other agency or

authority of the United States gathers or

makes available.

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view this document, as well

as all other Department of Education

documents published in the Federal

Register, in text or Adobe Portable

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet

at either of the following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use PDF you must have Adobe

Acrobat Reader, which is available free

at either of the previous sites. If you

have questions about using PDF, call the

U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO);

toll free, at 1–888–293–6498; or in the

Washington, DC, area at (202) 512–1530.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register. Free Internet access to the official

edition of the Federal Register and the Code

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO

66202 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/

index.html.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number 84.133 for Disability and

Rehabilitation Research: General Provisions)

List of Subjects

34 CFR Part 75

Accounting, Administrative practice

and procedure, Grant programs—

education, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

34 CFR Part 350

Administrative practice and

procedure, Eligibility, Grant

administration.

Dated: October 26, 2000.

Richard W. Riley,

Secretary of Education.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Secretary proposes to

amend parts 75 and 350 of title 34 of the

Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 75—DIRECT GRANT

PROGRAMS

1. The authority citation for part 75

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474,

unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 75.210 is amended as

follows:

a. By revising the undesignated

introductory text;

b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as

(c)(3);

c. Adding a new paragraph (c)(2);

d. Revising newly redesignated

paragraph (c)(3) introductory text; and

e. Revising paragraphs (d)(2) and

(e)(2).

The revisions and addition read as

follows:

§ 75.210 General selection criteria.

In determining the selection criteria to

be used in each grant competition, the

Secretary may select one or more of the

following criteria and may select from

among the list of optional factors under

each criterion. However, paragraphs

(c)(2), (d)(2), and (e)(2) of this section

are mandatory factors under their

respective criteria:

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) In determining the quality of the

design of the proposed project, the

Secretary considers the extent to which

the application proposes effective steps

to eliminate barriers that may impede

equitable access or participation by

groups that have been traditionally

underrepresented based on race, color,

national origin, gender, age, or

disability.

(3) In addition to paragraph (c)(2) of

this section, the Secretary also considers

one or more of the following factors:

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) In determining the quality of the

services to be provided by the proposed

project, the Secretary considers the

quality and effectiveness of the

applicant’s strategies for ensuring equal

access and treatment for eligible project

participants who are members of groups

that have been traditionally

underrepresented based on race, color,

national origin, gender, age, or

disability, including its steps to

overcome barriers to equitable

participation by those eligible

participants.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2)(i) In determining the quality of

project personnel—

(A) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the applicant encourages

applications for employment from

persons who are members of groups that

have been traditionally

underrepresented based on race, color,

national origin, gender, or age; and

(B) The Secretary considers the extent

to which an application includes

effective strategies for employing and

advancing in employment qualified

individuals with disabilities in the

proposed project, including the

accessibility of the project’s worksite

and equipment to these individuals.

(ii) In determining the effectiveness of

the strategies under paragraph

(e)(2)(i)(B) of this section, the Secretary,

as appropriate, considers the applicant’s

success, as described in the application,

in employing and advancing in

employment qualified individuals with

disabilities.

* * * * *

PART 350—DISABILITY AND

REHABILITATION RESEARCH

PROJECTS AND CENTERS PROGRAM

3. The authority citation for part 350

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 204; 29 U.S.C. 761–762,

unless otherwise noted.

4. Section 350.54 is amended by

revising paragraph (n)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 350.54 What selection criteria does the

Secretary use in evaluating an application?

* * * * *

(n) * * *

(2)(i) In determining the quality of

project staff—

(A) The Secretary considers the extent

to which an applicant encourages

applications for employment from

persons who are members of groups that

have been traditionally

underrepresented based on race, color,

national origin, gender, or age; and

(B) The Secretary considers the extent

to which an application includes

effective strategies for employing and

advancing in employment qualified

individuals with disabilities in the

proposed project, including the

accessibility of the project’s worksite

and equipment to these individuals.

(ii) In determining the effectiveness of

the strategies under paragraph

(n)(2)(i)(B) of this section, the Secretary,

as appropriate, considers the applicant’s

success, as described in the application,

in employing and advancing in

employment qualified individuals with

disabilities.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–27991 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 241–0244b; FRL–6893–2]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control

District (AVAPCD). The revisions

concern the recission and associated

negative declarations for one volatile

organic compound source category and

one oxides of nitrogen source category

for the Antelope Valley Air Pollution

Control District (AVAPCD).

The intended effect of this action is to

bring the AVAPCD SIP up to date in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). EPA is finalizing the

approval of these recissions and

associated negative declarations from

the California SIP under provisions of

the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas. EPA is approving

these revisions in accordance with the

requirements of the CAA.