Proposed Requirement-Migrant Education Program Consortium Incentive Grant Program, 40084-40086 [2013-16021]
Download as PDF
40084
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the human environment. This proposed
rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2–1, paragraph (34) (g), of the
Commandant Instruction because it
involves the establishment of a safety
zone.
A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist and a preliminary categorical
exclusion determination are available in
the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR parts 165 as follows:
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone shall
contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his on-scene representative to obtain
permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene
representative.
Dated: June 14, 2013.
S.M. Wischmann,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2013–16053 Filed 7–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
34 CFR Chapter II
1. The authority citation for Part 165
continues to read as follows:
Proposed Requirement—Migrant
Education Program Consortium
Incentive Grant Program
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T09–0418 to read as
follows:
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed requirement.
AGENCY:
■
[CFDA Number 84.144F]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 165.T09–0418 Safety Zone; Antique Boat
Festival, Niagara River, Grand Island, NY
(a) Location. The safety zone will
encompass all waters of the Niagara
River, Grand Island, NY starting at
position 42°59′59″ N, 078°56′22″ W,
East to 42°59′54″ N, 078°56′14″ W,
South to 42°57′54″ N, 078°56′04″ W,
West to 42°057′48″ N, 078°56′22″ W.
(NAD 83).
(b) Effective and Enforcement Period.
This regulation is effective and will be
enforced on September 7, 2013, from
9:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.
(c) Regulations.
(1) In accordance with the general
regulations in section 165.23 of this
part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene
representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his designated on-scene
representative.
(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of
the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been designated
by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act
on his behalf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:44 Jul 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
The Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes to change the maximum
duration of grants awarded to State
educational agencies (SEAs) under the
Migrant Education Program (MEP)
Consortium Incentive Grant (CIG)
Program from two years to three years.
We take this action to allow
participating SEAs to have an additional
year to conduct needed activities,
evaluate their projects, and provide a
final report addressing their success in
completing project activities and
achieving the objectives and outcomes
that were established in their approved
CIG program application.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before August 2, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments
concerning this notice to: Lisa Gillette,
U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E313,
Washington, DC 20202–6135.
If you prefer to send your comments
by email, use the following address:
lisa.gillette@ed.gov. You must include
the term ‘‘CIG-Duration’’ in the subject
line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa
Gillette. Telephone: (202) 260–1426, or
by email: lisa.gillette@ed.gov.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
Invitation
to Comment: We invite you to submit
comments regarding this notice.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 and their overall requirement
of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from this proposed
requirement. Please let us know of any
further ways we could reduce potential
costs or increase potential benefits
while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice in room 3E313, 400
Maryland Avenue, Washington, DC,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday
through Friday of each week except
Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The MEP,
authorized in title I, part C, section 1301
et seq. of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 6391 et seq.), is a
State-operated and State-administered
formula grant program. The MEP helps
SEAs support high-quality and
comprehensive educational programs
that do two things: provide migratory
children with appropriate educational
and supportive services that address
their special needs in a coordinated and
efficient manner, and give migratory
children the opportunity to meet the
same challenging State academic
content and student academic
achievement standards that all children
are expected to meet.
One component of the MEP is the CIG
program, authorized in section 1308(d)
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6398(d)).
Through the MEP CIG program, the
Department provides financial
incentives to SEAs to participate in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
high-quality consortia that improve the
interstate or intrastate coordination of
migrant education programs by
addressing key needs of migratory
children who have their education
interrupted.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6398.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34
CFR part 200, subpart C.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed Requirement
This notice contains one proposed
requirement.
Duration of Consortium Incentive
Grants
Background: The Department
published a notice of final requirements
for the MEP CIG Program in the Federal
Register on March 3, 2004 (69 FR
10110) (2004 Notice), and we have used
these final requirements for CIG
competitions since fiscal year (FY) 2004.
The 2004 Notice contained basic
requirements that govern CIG
applications, established seven
priorities that applicants must address,
established a two-tiered funding
formula (based on the size of the SEA’s
MEP formula grant) to determine the
amount of the award the Department
will make to SEAs that belong to
consortia selected for an award, and
authorized participating SEAs to use
these funds to augment their MEP
formula grant award. We subsequently
published a notice of final priority for
the MEP CIG program in the Federal
Register on March 12, 2008 (73 FR
13217), in which we added an eighth
priority.
The 2004 Notice also established a
project period of up to two years for
grants awarded under the MEP CIG
program. Grantees are required under
the 2004 Notice and 34 CFR 75.118 and
75.590 of the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR) to submit a performance report
(through the consortium’s lead State)
toward the end of the first project year
and a final summary evaluation report
at the end of the second project year.
These reports must address the
participating SEAs’ completion of
activities and attainment of objectives of
the approved consortium. We explained
in the 2004 Notice that we would not
conduct a new incentive grant
competition in FY 2005 but would make
second-year continuation funding
contingent on the SEAs’ substantial
completion of first-year consortium
activities and attainment of the
outcomes identified in the approved
consortium application; the amount of
second-year continuation funding was
to be based on the same two-tiered
formula described in the 2004 Notice.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Jul 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
We have followed this process for the
funding of second-year continuation
awards since 2004.
The Department last awarded CIGs in
FY 2012. Currently, 37 SEAs (out of a
total of 47 SEAs that receive MEP
formula grant program funds)
participate in CIG program-funded
consortia.
We are proposing to change the
project period for several reasons. The
2004 Notice limited the MEP CIG
awards to two years because they were
intended to fund innovative pilot
activities that grantees would put in
place during the grant period, and then
would continue with basic MEP formula
grant funding provided under Title I,
part C of the ESEA if the activities
proved useful. However, based on our
knowledge of the progress SEAs
generally make on consortium projects,
we believe that current grantees would
benefit from a third year in which to
work on and implement their CIG
projects. In addition, although the twoyear project period may sometimes be
sufficient, it unnecessarily inhibits the
Secretary’s ability to establish a threeyear project period for the CIG program
where it is appropriate to do so.
Increasing the project period that the
Secretary may establish for the CIG
program by one year will permit the
Secretary to exercise judgment about
what period would best permit grantees
to achieve results and obtain better data
to conduct the needed evaluations of
their projects.
Proposed Requirement—Duration of
Incentive Grants:
The Secretary may provide a
maximum project period of three years
for grants awarded under the MEP CIG
program. The Secretary may extend the
current two-year project period of the
FY 2012 grantees to three years as well
as determine a project period for future
competitions of up to three years.
For grants with a three-year project
period, grantees must submit a
performance report at the end of each
project year and are eligible for a
continuation award at the end of the
first and second project years based on
the two-tiered funding formula in the
2004 Notice. The second and third
year’s continuation funding is
contingent on the grantee making
substantial progress in performing the
previous year’s consortium activities
and in attaining the outcomes identified
in the approved consortium application.
Grantees must submit their final
summary evaluation report at the end of
the third project year.
Final Requirement:
We will announce the final
requirement in a notice in the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40085
Register. We will determine the final
requirement after considering responses
to this notice and other information
available to the Department. 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. We invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
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 proposed 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 proposed
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
upon 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
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40086
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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 issuing this proposed
requirement only on a reasoned
determination that its benefits would
justify its costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that would
maximize net benefits. Based on the
analysis that follows, the Department
believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
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.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:18 Jul 02, 2013
Jkt 229001
an accessible formal (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the 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 this 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: June 28, 2013.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2013–16021 Filed 7–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0343; FRL–9824–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a revision to the Illinois state
implementation plan (SIP) submitted by
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency on April 11, 2013. The
submission revises Title 35 of the
Illinois Administrative Code Part 254,
Annual Emissions Report. The revision
provides clarification regarding
greenhouse gases as it relates to the
annual emissions report.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 2, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2010–0946, by one of the
following methods:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov
3. Fax: (312) 692–2450.
4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley,
Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Please see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031,
hatten.charles@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment. For additional information,
see the direct final rule which is located
in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40084-40086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16021]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
Proposed Requirement--Migrant Education Program Consortium
Incentive Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Proposed requirement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[CFDA Number 84.144F]
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
proposes to change the maximum duration of grants awarded to State
educational agencies (SEAs) under the Migrant Education Program (MEP)
Consortium Incentive Grant (CIG) Program from two years to three years.
We take this action to allow participating SEAs to have an additional
year to conduct needed activities, evaluate their projects, and provide
a final report addressing their success in completing project
activities and achieving the objectives and outcomes that were
established in their approved CIG program application.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 2, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Lisa
Gillette, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room
3E313, Washington, DC 20202-6135.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following
address: lisa.gillette@ed.gov. You must include the term ``CIG-
Duration'' in the subject line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Gillette. Telephone: (202) 260-
1426, or by email: lisa.gillette@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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation to Comment: We invite you to
submit comments regarding this notice.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this
proposed requirement. Please let us know of any further ways we could
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in room 3E313, 400 Maryland Avenue,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The MEP, authorized in title I, part C, section
1301 et seq. of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 6391 et seq.), is a State-operated and State-
administered formula grant program. The MEP helps SEAs support high-
quality and comprehensive educational programs that do two things:
provide migratory children with appropriate educational and supportive
services that address their special needs in a coordinated and
efficient manner, and give migratory children the opportunity to meet
the same challenging State academic content and student academic
achievement standards that all children are expected to meet.
One component of the MEP is the CIG program, authorized in section
1308(d) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6398(d)). Through the MEP CIG program,
the Department provides financial incentives to SEAs to participate in
[[Page 40085]]
high-quality consortia that improve the interstate or intrastate
coordination of migrant education programs by addressing key needs of
migratory children who have their education interrupted.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6398.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 200, subpart C.
Proposed Requirement
This notice contains one proposed requirement.
Duration of Consortium Incentive Grants
Background: The Department published a notice of final requirements
for the MEP CIG Program in the Federal Register on March 3, 2004 (69 FR
10110) (2004 Notice), and we have used these final requirements for CIG
competitions since fiscal year (FY) 2004. The 2004 Notice contained
basic requirements that govern CIG applications, established seven
priorities that applicants must address, established a two-tiered
funding formula (based on the size of the SEA's MEP formula grant) to
determine the amount of the award the Department will make to SEAs that
belong to consortia selected for an award, and authorized participating
SEAs to use these funds to augment their MEP formula grant award. We
subsequently published a notice of final priority for the MEP CIG
program in the Federal Register on March 12, 2008 (73 FR 13217), in
which we added an eighth priority.
The 2004 Notice also established a project period of up to two
years for grants awarded under the MEP CIG program. Grantees are
required under the 2004 Notice and 34 CFR 75.118 and 75.590 of the
Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) to
submit a performance report (through the consortium's lead State)
toward the end of the first project year and a final summary evaluation
report at the end of the second project year. These reports must
address the participating SEAs' completion of activities and attainment
of objectives of the approved consortium. We explained in the 2004
Notice that we would not conduct a new incentive grant competition in
FY 2005 but would make second-year continuation funding contingent on
the SEAs' substantial completion of first-year consortium activities
and attainment of the outcomes identified in the approved consortium
application; the amount of second-year continuation funding was to be
based on the same two-tiered formula described in the 2004 Notice. We
have followed this process for the funding of second-year continuation
awards since 2004.
The Department last awarded CIGs in FY 2012. Currently, 37 SEAs
(out of a total of 47 SEAs that receive MEP formula grant program
funds) participate in CIG program-funded consortia.
We are proposing to change the project period for several reasons.
The 2004 Notice limited the MEP CIG awards to two years because they
were intended to fund innovative pilot activities that grantees would
put in place during the grant period, and then would continue with
basic MEP formula grant funding provided under Title I, part C of the
ESEA if the activities proved useful. However, based on our knowledge
of the progress SEAs generally make on consortium projects, we believe
that current grantees would benefit from a third year in which to work
on and implement their CIG projects. In addition, although the two-year
project period may sometimes be sufficient, it unnecessarily inhibits
the Secretary's ability to establish a three-year project period for
the CIG program where it is appropriate to do so. Increasing the
project period that the Secretary may establish for the CIG program by
one year will permit the Secretary to exercise judgment about what
period would best permit grantees to achieve results and obtain better
data to conduct the needed evaluations of their projects.
Proposed Requirement--Duration of Incentive Grants:
The Secretary may provide a maximum project period of three years
for grants awarded under the MEP CIG program. The Secretary may extend
the current two-year project period of the FY 2012 grantees to three
years as well as determine a project period for future competitions of
up to three years.
For grants with a three-year project period, grantees must submit a
performance report at the end of each project year and are eligible for
a continuation award at the end of the first and second project years
based on the two-tiered funding formula in the 2004 Notice. The second
and third year's continuation funding is contingent on the grantee
making substantial progress in performing the previous year's
consortium activities and in attaining the outcomes identified in the
approved consortium application. Grantees must submit their final
summary evaluation report at the end of the third project year.
Final Requirement:
We will announce the final requirement in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final requirement after considering
responses to this notice and other information available to the
Department. 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. We invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 upon 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
[[Page 40086]]
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 issuing this proposed requirement only on a reasoned
determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches
that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows,
the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
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.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible formal (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the 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 this
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: June 28, 2013.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2013-16021 Filed 7-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P