Final Revision to Selection Criteria-Enhanced Assessment Instruments; CFDA Number: 84.368, 25470-25472 [2012-10357]
Download as PDF
25470
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Notices
access to the Grants.gov help desk to
address any technical issues related to
application submission that may arise
the day before the deadline date. As a
result of the change in the deadline
date, we are also extending the Date for
Intergovernmental Review by one day—
to July 26, 2012.
Correction
An error appears in the Electronic
Submission of Applications section of
the March 27 i3 Validation NIA. In
seven places within that section, the
notice indicates that applications must
be fully uploaded and submitted and
must be date and time stamped by the
Grants.gov system no later than 4:30
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the
application deadline date. These
references to ‘‘4:30 p.m.’’ should be
references to ‘‘4:30:00 p.m.’’ For this
reason, we correct the March 27 i3
Validation NIA as follows:
On page 18238, second column,
second bulleted paragraph, correct the
three references to ‘‘4:30 p.m.’’ to read
‘‘4:30:00 p.m.’’.
On page 18238, third column, sixth
paragraph, correct the reference to ‘‘4:30
p.m.’’ to read ‘‘4:30:00 p.m.’’.
On page 18238, third column, seventh
paragraph, correct the two references to
‘‘4:30 p.m.’’ to read ‘‘4:30:00 p.m.’’.
On page 18239, second column, fifth
full paragraph, correct the reference to
‘‘4:30 p.m.’’ to read ‘‘4:30:00 p.m.’’.
Program Authority: American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A,
Section 14007, Public Law 111–5.
VIII. Agency Contact
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carol Lyons, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 4W203, Washington, DC 20202–
5930. Fax: (202) 205–5631. Telephone:
(202) 453–7122 or by email: i3@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document
and a copy of the application package in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT in this notice.
Electronic Access to This Document:
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 via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Apr 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: April 25, 2012.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2012–10373 Filed 4–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0002]
Final Revision to Selection Criteria—
Enhanced Assessment Instruments;
CFDA Number: 84.368
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education
amends the selection criteria under the
Enhanced Assessment Instruments
Grant program, also called the Enhanced
Assessment Grant (EAG) program, as
established in the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria published in the
Federal Register on April 19, 2011
(2011 NFP). The 2011 NFP established
specific priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria that
may be used for the EAG program. The
revisions in this notice provide the
Secretary with additional flexibility
with respect to selection criteria for
EAG competitions in 2012 that use
fiscal year (FY) 2011 funds and for
subsequent competitions. We believe
that these revisions will enable the
Department to administer this program
more effectively, simplify the
application and review processes, and
better ensure that the strongest
applications receive EAG funds.
DATES: Effective Date: The revisions are
effective May 30, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Collette Roney, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
room 3W210, Washington, DC 20202.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Telephone: (202) 401–5245 or by email:
Collette.Roney@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the EAG program is to enhance the
quality of assessment instruments and
systems used by States for measuring
the academic achievement of
elementary and secondary school
students.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7301a.
We published a notice of proposed
revisions for this program in the Federal
Register on January 30, 2012 (77 FR
4553). That notice contained
background information and our reasons
for proposing the revisions relating to
the use of selection criteria for this
program.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the notice of proposed
revisions, we did not receive any
comments. However, as a result of our
further review of the proposed revisions
since publication of the notice of
proposed revisions, we have made one
change as follows:
Analysis of Comments and Changes
Comment: None.
Discussion: In reviewing the
statement of the proposed revisions to
selection criteria further, the
Department has decided that it may be
helpful to address the assignment of
maximum possible points—not only
with respect to criteria used for
competitions, but also with respect to
factors under those criteria. The
Department has the authority under 34
CFR 75.201 to assign maximum points
at the factor level. This change,
therefore, does not substantively change
the Department’s authority or practice;
it merely describes the manner in which
the Department may indicate whether
factors under a selection criterion have
been assigned maximum points.
Changes: We have added language to
the statement of revisions to clarify that
the Department may assign, in the
notice inviting applications, the
application package, or both, the
maximum possible points an applicant
may earn under each factor under a
selection criterion.
Final Revisions to Selection Criteria
The Secretary may use one or more of
the selection criteria listed in
paragraphs (a) through (d) for evaluating
an application under this program. This
flexibility includes the authority to
reduce the number of selection criteria.
In order to assist peer reviewers in
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Notices
determining the degree to which an
applicant meets a criterion, the
Secretary may further define each
criterion from each of these sources by
selecting one or more specific factors
within a criterion or assigning factors
from one criterion, from any of those
sources, to another criterion, in any of
those sources. We may apply one or
more of these criteria in any year in
which this program is in effect. In the
notice inviting applications or the
application package, or both, we will
announce the maximum possible points
assigned to each criterion and may also
assign the maximum possible points for
each factor.
Selection criteria for any EAG
competition may come from:
(a) The selection criteria established
in the 2011 NFP.
(b) The selection criteria in 34 CFR
75.210.
(c) Selection criteria based on the
statutory requirements for the EAG
program in accordance with 34 CFR
75.209.
(d) Any combination of selection
criteria and factors in paragraphs (a)
through (c).
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these selection criteria,
we invite applications through a notice in the
Federal Register.1
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local or Tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
1 Availability of funds for the EAG program for a
given year is contingent upon an appropriation of
funds for the program by the Congress.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Apr 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory
action under Executive Order 13563,
which supplements and explicitly
reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866.
To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an
agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are taking this regulatory action
only on a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that these
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25471
regulations are consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
associated with this regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Summary of Potential Costs and
Benefits
This regulatory action affects only
State educational agencies (SEAs) or
consortia of SEAs applying for
assistance under the EAG program. It
creates flexibility for the Department,
with respect to EAG competitions in
2012 for FY 2011 funds and for
subsequent competitions, to select from
among, or to combine, selection criteria
that were established in the 2011 NFP
criteria, selection criteria from 34 CFR
75.210, and other selection criteria
based on the statute under 34 CFR
75.209. This flexibility allows the
Department to align selection criteria
with program needs and ensure that the
strongest applications are selected for
funding under the program.
This flexibility does not impose a
financial burden that SEAs would not
otherwise incur in the development and
submission of a grant application under
the EAG program. In addition, under
some circumstances (for example, if the
Department elected to use fewer criteria
or factors in a given competition), the
revisions could reduce the financial
burden of preparing an EAG grant
application by a modest amount.
Moreover, the Department typically
only receives a small number of
applications for this program, which
further serves to mitigate any potential
costs because few entities are affected.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to 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 this program.
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
25472
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2012 / Notices
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or computer diskette)
on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
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 via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: April 25, 2012.
Michael Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2012–10357 Filed 4–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Amended Notice of Intent To Modify
the Scope of the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Champlain Hudson
Power Express Transmission Line
Project in New York State
Department of Energy.
Amended Notice of Intent.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The United States (U.S.)
Department of Energy (DOE) intends to
modify the scope of the Champlain
Hudson Power Express Transmission
Line Project Environmental Impact
Statement (CHPE EIS; DOE/EIS–0447)
and to conduct additional public
scoping. As described in the original
Notice of Intent (NOI) (75 FR 34720;
June 18, 2010), in January 2010,
Transmission Developers Inc. (TDI)
submitted, on behalf of Champlain
Hudson Power Express, Inc.
(Applicant), an application to DOE for a
Presidential permit for the Champlain
Hudson Power Express (Champlain
Hudson) project. As explained in the
NOI, DOE will assess the potential
environmental impacts associated with
the construction, operation,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Apr 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
maintenance, and connection of the
proposed new electric transmission line
across the U.S.-Canada border in
northeastern New York State. Public
scoping originally closed on August 2,
2010. On February 28, 2012, TDI
submitted an amendment to the
application for a Presidential permit to
DOE that reflects proposed changes to
the route of the Champlain Hudson
project, and DOE now intends to revise
the scope of the EIS to address these
proposed changes. The proposed
changes are the result of settlement
negotiations among New York (NY)
State agencies, Champlain Hudson
Power Express, Inc., CHPE Properties,
Inc. and other stakeholders as part of the
project review under Article VII of the
New York State Public Service Law, and
are reflected in a February 24, 2012,
‘‘Joint Proposal’’ submitted to the New
York Public Service Commission.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, New
York Field Office (USFWS Region 5),
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA Region 2), the
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC),
and the New York State Department of
Public Service (NYSDPS) are
cooperating agencies in the preparation
of the EIS.
DATES: DOE is accepting public
comments on the revised scope of the
CHPE EIS until June 14, 2012. DOE will
consider comments submitted after this
date to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Please direct written
comments on the scope of the EIS and
requests to be added to the document
mailing list to: Brian Mills, Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE–20), U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585; by
electronic mail to
Brian.Mills@hq.doe.gov; or by facsimile
to 202–586–8008. For general
information on the DOE NEPA process
contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom,
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and
Compliance (GC–54), U.S. Department
of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone
202–586–4600, or leave a message at 1–
800–472–2756; by facsimile at 202–586–
7031; or send an email to
askNEPA@hq.doe.gov.
For information on the USFWS’s role
as a cooperating agency, contact Tim R.
Sullivan by electronic mail at
Tim_R_Sullivan@fws.gov; by phone at
602–753–9334; or by mail at 3817 Luker
Road, Cortland, NY 13045.
For information on the Army Corps of
Engineers’ permit process, contact
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Naomi J. Handell by electronic mail at
Naomi.J.Handell@usace.army.mil; or by
mail at 696 Virginia Road, Concord, MA
01742.
For information on the EPA’s role as
a cooperating agency, contact Lingard
Knutson by electronic mail at
Knutson.Lingard@epamail.epa.gov; by
phone at 212–637–3747; or by mail at
290 Broadway, Mail Code: 25th Floor,
New York, NY 10007–1866.
For information on the New York
State Department of Environmental
Conservation’s role as a cooperating
agency, contact Patricia Desnoyers by
electronic mail to
pjdesnoy@gw.dec.state.ny.us; or by mail
at 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233.
For information on the New York
State Department of Public Service’s
role as a cooperating agency, contact
James Austin by electronic mail at
james_austin@dps.state.ny.us; or by
mail at 3 Empire State Plaza, Albany,
NY 12223.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Executive Order (E.O.) 10485,
Providing for the performance of certain
functions heretofore performed by the
President with respect to electric power
and natural gas facilities located on the
borders of the United States, as
amended by E.O. 12038 Relating to
certain Functions transferred to the
Secretary of Energy by the Department
of Energy Organization Act, requires
issuance of a Presidential permit by
DOE before electric transmission
facilities may be constructed, operated,
maintained, or connected at the U.S.
international border. The E.O. provides
that a Presidential permit may be issued
after a finding that the proposed project
is consistent with the public interest
and after favorable recommendations
from the U.S. Departments of State and
Defense. In determining consistency
with the public interest, DOE considers
the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed project under NEPA,
determines the project’s impact on
electric reliability (including whether
the proposed project would adversely
affect the operation of the U.S. electric
power supply system under normal and
contingency conditions), and considers
any other factors that DOE may find
relevant to the public interest. The
regulations implementing the E.O. have
been codified at 10 CFR 205.320–
205.329. DOE’s issuance of a
Presidential permit would indicate that
there is no Federal objection to the
project, but would not mandate that the
project be constructed.
On January 25, 2010, TDI submitted
an application, on behalf of Champlain
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25470-25472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10357]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2012-OESE-0002]
Final Revision to Selection Criteria--Enhanced Assessment
Instruments; CFDA Number: 84.368
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
amends the selection criteria under the Enhanced Assessment Instruments
Grant program, also called the Enhanced Assessment Grant (EAG) program,
as established in the notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria published in the Federal Register
on April 19, 2011 (2011 NFP). The 2011 NFP established specific
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria that may
be used for the EAG program. The revisions in this notice provide the
Secretary with additional flexibility with respect to selection
criteria for EAG competitions in 2012 that use fiscal year (FY) 2011
funds and for subsequent competitions. We believe that these revisions
will enable the Department to administer this program more effectively,
simplify the application and review processes, and better ensure that
the strongest applications receive EAG funds.
DATES: Effective Date: The revisions are effective May 30, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Collette Roney, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 3W210, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 401-5245 or by email: Collette.Roney@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the EAG program is to enhance
the quality of assessment instruments and systems used by States for
measuring the academic achievement of elementary and secondary school
students.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7301a.
We published a notice of proposed revisions for this program in the
Federal Register on January 30, 2012 (77 FR 4553). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
revisions relating to the use of selection criteria for this program.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed revisions, we did not receive any comments. However, as a
result of our further review of the proposed revisions since
publication of the notice of proposed revisions, we have made one
change as follows:
Analysis of Comments and Changes
Comment: None.
Discussion: In reviewing the statement of the proposed revisions to
selection criteria further, the Department has decided that it may be
helpful to address the assignment of maximum possible points--not only
with respect to criteria used for competitions, but also with respect
to factors under those criteria. The Department has the authority under
34 CFR 75.201 to assign maximum points at the factor level. This
change, therefore, does not substantively change the Department's
authority or practice; it merely describes the manner in which the
Department may indicate whether factors under a selection criterion
have been assigned maximum points.
Changes: We have added language to the statement of revisions to
clarify that the Department may assign, in the notice inviting
applications, the application package, or both, the maximum possible
points an applicant may earn under each factor under a selection
criterion.
Final Revisions to Selection Criteria
The Secretary may use one or more of the selection criteria listed
in paragraphs (a) through (d) for evaluating an application under this
program. This flexibility includes the authority to reduce the number
of selection criteria. In order to assist peer reviewers in
[[Page 25471]]
determining the degree to which an applicant meets a criterion, the
Secretary may further define each criterion from each of these sources
by selecting one or more specific factors within a criterion or
assigning factors from one criterion, from any of those sources, to
another criterion, in any of those sources. We may apply one or more of
these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. In the
notice inviting applications or the application package, or both, we
will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion
and may also assign the maximum possible points for each factor.
Selection criteria for any EAG competition may come from:
(a) The selection criteria established in the 2011 NFP.
(b) The selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210.
(c) Selection criteria based on the statutory requirements for the
EAG program in accordance with 34 CFR 75.209.
(d) Any combination of selection criteria and factors in paragraphs
(a) through (c).
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these selection criteria, we
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.\1\
\1\ Availability of funds for the EAG program for a given year
is contingent upon an appropriation of funds for the program by the
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are taking this regulatory action only on a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that
maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that these regulations are consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits
This regulatory action affects only State educational agencies
(SEAs) or consortia of SEAs applying for assistance under the EAG
program. It creates flexibility for the Department, with respect to EAG
competitions in 2012 for FY 2011 funds and for subsequent competitions,
to select from among, or to combine, selection criteria that were
established in the 2011 NFP criteria, selection criteria from 34 CFR
75.210, and other selection criteria based on the statute under 34 CFR
75.209. This flexibility allows the Department to align selection
criteria with program needs and ensure that the strongest applications
are selected for funding under the program.
This flexibility does not impose a financial burden that SEAs would
not otherwise incur in the development and submission of a grant
application under the EAG program. In addition, under some
circumstances (for example, if the Department elected to use fewer
criteria or factors in a given competition), the revisions could reduce
the financial burden of preparing an EAG grant application by a modest
amount. Moreover, the Department typically only receives a small number
of applications for this program, which further serves to mitigate any
potential costs because few entities are affected.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to 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 this program.
[[Page 25472]]
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: 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 via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: April 25, 2012.
Michael Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2012-10357 Filed 4-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P