5512 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance:

Harassment of Students by School

Employees, Other Students, or Third

Parties

AGENCY: Office for Civil Rights,

Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for

Civil Rights, U.S. Department of

Education (Department), announces the

availability of a document (revised

sexual harassment guidance) that

replaces the 1997 document entitled

‘‘Sexual Harassment Guidance:

Harassment of Students by School

Employees, Other Students, or Third

Parties,’’ issued by the Office for Civil

Rights (OCR) on March 13, 1997 (1997

guidance). We revised the guidance in

limited respects in light of subsequent

Supreme Court cases relating to sexual

harassment in schools.

The revised guidance reaffirms the

compliance standards that OCR applies

in investigations and administrative

enforcement of Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972 (Title IX)

regarding sexual harassment. The

revised guidance re-grounds these

standards in the Title IX regulations,

distinguishing them from the standards

applicable to private litigation for

money damages and clarifying their

regulatory basis as distinct from Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

agency law. In most other respects the

revised guidance is identical to the 1997

guidance. Thus, we intend the revised

guidance to serve the same purpose as

the 1997 guidance. It continues to

provide the principles that a school

should use to recognize and effectively

respond to sexual harassment of

students in its program as a condition of

receiving Federal financial assistance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Address requests for copies of the

revised sexual harassment guidance to

Jeanette J. Lim, U.S. Department of

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,

room 5212 Switzer Building,

Washington, DC 20202–1100.

Telephone: (202) 205–5557 or 1–800–

421–3481. For all requests submitted by

letter, you must include the term

‘‘Revised Sexual Harassment

Guidance.’’

If you use a telecommunications

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call

the TDD number at (202) 260–0471. The

document is also available through the

Internet at the following site: http://

www.ed.gov/ocr/shguide

If you prefer to send your request

through the Internet, use the following

address: ocr@ed.gov

You must include the term ‘‘Revised

Sexual Harassment Guidance’’ in the

subject line of your electronic message.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternative

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

audiotape, or computer diskette) by

contacting the OCR Customer Service

Team at 1–800–421–3481.

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view this notice, 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 notice is

the notice 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 Access at:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.

Dated: January 16, 2001.

Norma V. Cantu ́,

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

[FR Doc. 01–1606 Filed 1–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6933–6]

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request; Impact of Formal

Environmental Policy Statements on

the Teaching, Research and

Operations of Colleges and

Universities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this document announces

that EPA is planning to submit the

following proposed Information

Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB):

‘‘Impact of Formal Environmental

Policy Statements on the Teaching,

Research and Operations of Colleges

and Universities’’; EPA ICR #2013.01.

Before submitting the ICR to OMB for

review and approval, EPA is soliciting

comments on specific aspects of the

proposed information collection as

described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before March 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Office of Enforcement and

Compliance, EPA Region 10, 1200 6th

Ave. (MS OEC–164), Seattle, WA 98101.

Interested persons may obtain a copy of

the ICR without charge; to do so, see the

following Further Information Contact

section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clark L. Gaulding; Academic Program

Manager and Senior Policy Advisor;

(206) 553–1849; fax (206) 553–7176. Email at <gaulding.clark@epa.gov>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Affected entities: Entities potentially

affected by this action are institutions

providing college or university

education leading to bachelors and

graduate degrees.

Title: ‘‘Impact of Formal

Environmental Policy Statements on the

Teaching, Research and Operations of

Colleges and Universities’’; EPA ICR

#2013.01.

Abstract: Many universities and

colleges have adopted formal statements

of environmental policy, and more are

being adopted all the time. This is

probably good, but little is known about

the impacts that these statements have

on the actual behavior of our academic

institutions. Do they make a difference,

and, if so, how? Where’s the evidence?

Is articulated environmental policy a

prophesy of future behavior at the

schools that adopt them, or is it rhetoric,

however well intended?

This survey study is intended to

develop some possible answers to these

questions. Written surveys and selected

follow-up interviews will be conducted

on a representative number of the

approximately 4,000 campuses across

the U.S. Part of the inquiry is statistical

in nature; how many schools have a

formal policy on the environment, and

how many do not; does it make a

difference whether the school is public

or private, large or small, urban or rural?

Does region make a difference? Of the

schools with policies, when were they

adopted and is there a trend? Finally,

can anything be made of the numbers?

Beyond the numbers, the survey, and

especially the interviews, will focus on

(1) substance and (2) impact. A random

cross-section of written policy

statements will be analyzed in

comparative fashion to understand not

only who wrote them, but what topics

they literally address (especially,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2001 / Notices 5513

teaching, research and operations) and

what tone they impart (especially, how

purely philosophical or action-oriented

are they).

The impact of articulated

environmental policy on institutional

behavior will be weighed in two ways.

The institutions themselves will be

asked to explain and document the

impacts across the full range of

university activities. In parallel, EPA

data will be used to look at

environmental compliance at schools

both with and without written policy to

see whether there is any inferential

relationship. Response to the study will

be voluntary, and results will be

reported in statistical fashion rather

than with reference to any particular

school. The analytical information and

conclusions resulting from this study

will be useful to academic institutions

as they consider their role and

responsibility toward society with

respect to the natural environment, and

to EPA in its policy deliberations

regarding its relationship with higher

education as an important element of

society.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

The EPA would like to solicit

comments to:

(i) 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;

(ii) 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;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(iv) 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 submission of responses.

Burden statement: Burden means the

total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide

information to or for a Federal agency.

This includes the time needed to review

instructions; develop, acquire, install,

and utilize technology and systems for

the purposes of collecting, validating,

and verifying information, processing

and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information;

adjust the existing ways to comply with

any previously applicable instructions

and requirements; train personnel to be

able to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

There are two elements to this

proposed study: a written survey

questionnaire and a follow-up interview

for a selected sub-set of those

responding to the questionnaire. Using

the burden definition above, it is

estimated that the total hour burden for

an institution to respond to the written

survey questionnaire will be between

five (5) and fifteen (15) hours depending

on the size and organization of the

respondent institution. The hour burden

for an institution to participate in a

follow-up interview is estimated not to

exceed two (2) hours. It is not expected

that any institution will incur any

capital or recurring costs to participate

in the study. Therefore, the dollar cost

burden of participation will be directly

related to the hour burden and the wage

or salary rate of the individuals who

handle the response at each institution.

Dated: January 8, 2001.

Lauris Davies,

Director, Office of Enforcement and

Compliance, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 01–1345 Filed 1–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6614–8]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared pursuant to the Environmental

Review Process (ERP), under Section

309 of the Clean Air Act and Section

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act as amended. Requests for

copies of EPA comments can be directed

to the Office of Federal Activities at

(202) 564–7167. An explanation of the

ratings assigned to draft environmental

impact statements (EISs) was published

in FR dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR

20157).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–L65367–AK Rating

EC2, Chugach National Forest, Proposed

Revised Land and Resource

Management Plan, Implementation,

Glacier, Seward and Cordora Ranger

Districts, Kenai Peninsula Borough, AK.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the lack of

clarity in the direction and protections

in the proposed Standards and

Guidelines and the lack of detail in the

proposed monitoring and evaluation

plan. EPA recommended that the FEIS

be revised clarifying how the new plan

would conform with the new planning

rule, clarify and strengthen the

standards and guidelines, revise and

refine the monitoring plan, and provide

information to support conclusions of

the predicted effects.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–L65327–WA Stimson

Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act (ANILCA) Access

Easement Project, Easement

Authorization Grant for Construction,

Reconstruction and Use of Seven Road

Segments for Hauling Logs and

Resource Management, Colville

National Forest, Sullivan Ranger

District, Pend Oreille County, WA.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–AFS–L65353–ID LakefaceLamb Fuel Reduction Project, To

Reduce the Risk of Lethal Fires within

a Wildland/Urban Interface,

Implementation, Idaho Panhandle

National Forests, Priest Lake Ranger

District, Bonner County, ID.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–AFS–L65365–ID Swan Flat

Timber Sale, Proposal to Cut and Haul

Sawtimber, Caribou National Forest,

Land Resource Management Plan

(LRMP), Montpelier Ranger District,

Bear Lake County, ID.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–BLM–K67040–CA Imperial

Project, Open-Pit Precious Metal Mining

Operation Utilizing Heap Leach

Processes, Updated Information

concerning ‘‘Endangered, Rare or

Threatened’’ Biological Resources, Plan

of Operations and Reclamation Plan

Approvals, Right-of-Way Grants,

Conditional Use/U.S. COE Permits, El

Centro Resource Area, Desert District.

Summary: EPA commended BLM on

its consideration of the unique

characteristics of the project area within

the California Desert Conservation Area,

and the proposed project’s potential

irreparable degradation of sacred and

historic values of the Indian PassRunning Man Area of Traditional

Cultural Concern, in identifying its

preference for the No Action

Alternative.