Final Priority and Requirements; Education Facilities Clearinghouse, 41694-41698 [2013-16668]
Download as PDF
41694
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
The Coast Guard will enforce
safety zones in the Captain of the Port
New York Zone on the specified dates
and times. This action is necessary to
ensure the safety of vessels and
spectators from hazards associated with
fireworks displays. During the
enforcement period, no person or vessel
may enter the safety zones without
permission of the Captain of the Port
(COTP).
DATES: The regulation for the safety
zones described in 33 CFR 165.160 will
be enforced on the dates and times
SUMMARY:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2013–0572]
Safety Zone; Fireworks Events in
Captain of the Port New York Zone
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
listed in the table in the SUPPLEMENTARY
section of this notice.
INFORMATION
If
you have questions on this notice, call
or email Lieutenant Junior Grade
Kristopher Kesting, Coast Guard Sector
New York; telephone 718–354–4154,
email Kristopher.R.Kesting@uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Coast
Guard will enforce the safety zones
listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the
specified dates and times as indicated in
Table 1 below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
TABLE 1
1. Midland Beach Sea Turtle Fireworks Display,
Midland Beach, Staten Island Safety Zone.
33 CFR 165.160(2.11) ........................................
Under the provisions of 33 CFR
165.160, a vessel may not enter the
regulated area unless given express
permission from the COTP or the
designated representative. Spectator
vessels may transit outside the regulated
area but may not anchor, block, loiter in,
or impede the transit of other vessels.
The Coast Guard may be assisted by
other Federal, State, or local law
enforcement agencies in enforcing this
regulation.
This notice is issued under authority
of 33 CFR 165.160 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
In addition to this notice in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide
mariners with advanced notification of
enforcement periods via the Local
Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts. If the COTP
determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration
stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners may be used to grant general
permission to enter the regulated area.
Dated: June 24, 2013.
G. Loebl,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2013–16618 Filed 7–10–13; 8:45 am]
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:17 Jul 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
• Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 40°34′12″ N, 074°04′29.6″ W (NAD
1983), approximately 800 yards southeast of Midland Beach. This Safety Zone is a 500-yard
radius from the barge.
• Dates: June 29, July 13, August 17 2013.
• Times: 8:30 p.m.–10:00 p.m.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED–2013–OESE–0062; CFDA
Number: 84.215T]
Final Priority and Requirements;
Education Facilities Clearinghouse
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
AGENCY:
The Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education
announces a priority and requirements
under the Education Facilities
Clearinghouse (EFC) program and may
use one or more of the priority and
requirements for competitions in fiscal
year (FY) 2013 and later years. Through
this action, we intend to support the
collection and dissemination of best
practices for the planning, design,
financing, procurement, construction,
improvement, operation, and
maintenance of safe, healthy, and highperforming elementary and secondary
education facilities. Specifically, this
priority and requirements will support
the establishment of a clearinghouse to
help stakeholders recognize the linkages
between the school facility and three
areas: Academic instruction, student
and community well-being, and school
fiscal health.
DATES: Effective Date: These priority
and requirements are effective August
12, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat
Rattler, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room
3E254, Washington, DC 20202.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Telephone: (202) 453–6718 or by email:
Pat.Rattler@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:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the Education Facilities Clearinghouse
program is to provide technical
assistance and training on the planning,
design, financing, procurement,
construction, improvement, operation,
and maintenance of safe, healthy, and
high-performing elementary and
secondary education facilities.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131; 7243–
7243b.
We published a notice of proposed
priority and requirements in the Federal
Register on May 9, 2013 (78 FR 27129).
That notice contained background
information and our reasons for
proposing the particular priority and
requirements.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the notice of proposed
priority and requirements, four parties
submitted comments on the proposed
priority and requirements. We group
major issues according to subject.
Generally, we do not address technical
and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and of any
changes in the priority and
requirements since publication of the
notice of proposed priority and
requirements follows.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concerns about whether the initiatives
proposed in the priority and
requirements could be maintained or
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
lead to change on a long-term basis. The
commenter also suggested that other
variables affecting student achievement,
such as inequality of funding or the
effect of the community on the school,
should be addressed in the priority and
requirements.
Discussion: We believe that the
proposal to award a grant under this
program for multiple years will help
sustain the effort to support the
collection and dissemination of best
practices for the planning, design,
financing, procurement, construction,
improvement, operation, and
maintenance of safe, healthy, and highperforming elementary and secondary
education facilities. By providing
support to help increase the capacity of
States and local educational agencies
(LEAs), the priority will help support
long-term change in these specific areas
by increasing the knowledge and skills
that education providers have to
support effective improvements to their
facilities. We provide funding and
support through other programs, such as
Title I, Part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (Title I) to help meet the
additional needs of disadvantaged
students and to support parent and
community engagement. For example,
Title I targets more than $13.7 billion in
resources to LEAs and schools with high
numbers or percentages of children from
low-income families to provide
additional services that improve the
teaching and learning of educationally
at-risk children to help ensure they meet
State academic standards. In order to
receive Title I funds, LEAs are required
under ESEA to ensure that their Title I
schools, which tend to be those with the
highest poverty levels, receive resources
from local and State sources that are
comparable to those received by nonTitle I schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended we specify in the notice
of final priority and requirements the
designations of the priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational.
Discussion: We appreciate these
recommendations and have considered
them in developing the notice inviting
applications for the fiscal year 2013 EFC
competition. However, specifying a
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational in a notice of
final priority commits the Department to
using the priority that way in all future
competitions. In order to preserve our
ability to use this priority as needed and
to better serve States and LEAs, we are
not specifying in this notice of final
priority and requirements whether the
priority is absolute, competitive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:17 Jul 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
preference, or invitational. We do so in
the notice inviting applications for the
2013 competition, published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we add specific
qualifications that a successful
applicant funded under the EFC
program should have beyond the
educational sector, namely expertise in
recognizing and disseminating
information about specific definitions of
high-performance buildings identified
in the Energy Independence and
Security Act, securing connections to
relevant professional societies and other
key stakeholders, executing a complex
outreach and engagement program,
managing a robust Web site, and
influencing decision makers.
Discussion: We appreciate the
importance of the EFC provider having
expertise in specific areas; however, we
decline to require more specific
qualifications that an applicant must
meet in order to be eligible for funding.
Because the EFC will have to
disseminate information on a range of
facilities topics, we do not want to limit
specific areas in which the grantee must
have knowledge. In addition, some of
the qualifications recommended by the
commenter, namely the ability to
execute outreach and engagement
programs and manage a Web site, may
be evaluated through selection criteria
for this program. Finally, the purpose of
the EFC is to disseminate information
on facilities and provide assistance to
facilities managers; and specifically
influencing decision makers is beyond
the scope of this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the EFC should provide balanced
information on best practices for school
safety and security and school facilities.
The commenter emphasized that it is
important for school staff to be able to
make informed choices about school
facilities.
Discussion: In the notice of proposed
priority and requirements, we included
a requirement that an applicant for the
EFC grant must have a plan to track and
compile research and best practices, as
well as develop resources that support
safe, healthy, and high-performing
school facilities. In addition, this grant
will be a cooperative agreement, which
will allow us to work with the grantee
to ensure that the resources presented
are supported by evidence,
comprehensive, and balanced. These
resources will help support education
stakeholders in making informed
decisions about improvements to school
facilities.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41695
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we establish an
absolute priority requiring the grantee to
collect and disseminate information on
Green Schools. The commenter
indicated that having an absolute
priority would help ensure alignment
between the ED-Green Ribbon Schools
program and the EFC program and
maximize the use of limited resources.
Discussion: We agree that providing
information to support the maintenance
and creation of Green Schools is
important, and we envision that Green
Building may be one area in which the
EFC may provide technical assistance,
training, and products. However, there
are numerous organizations that provide
information to support the adoption of
green practices in schools. Since this
information is already provided by
many organizations and because we
have limited funds to provide support
for improving educational facilities, we
do not believe that including a priority
on Green Schools would be the most
effective use of these funds.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we expand the work
of the EFC to include both collecting
and analyzing data about the state of
elementary and secondary school
facilities and publishing these analyses
so that they can inform research on the
relationship between school facilities
and school quality.
Discussion: We understand that there
is a need for data to support additional
research on the effect of school facilities
on a number of elements related to
student learning; however, the central
purpose of the EFC grant is to provide
technical assistance and training on the
planning, design, financing,
procurement, construction,
improvement, operation, and
maintenance of elementary and
secondary school facilities. Toward this
end, the EFC may provide links to
appropriate collections of this
information, or develop briefs
summarizing what research and
statistics currently exist. However, with
limited funds, we cannot support
original data collection and analysis,
especially if the collection and analysis
are duplicative of what currently exists.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for the important balance
between student safety and creating a
learning environment that supports trust
and collaboration. The commenter
recommended that we include language
to support this balance in the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the
importance of the EFC provider
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
41696
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
understanding the various aspects of,
and the links between, the school’s
physical environment and the creation
of a learning environment that supports
safety and nurtures trust and
collaboration. We believe that we have
included language that supports the
balance between student safety and
creating a learning environment that
supports trust and collaboration.
Specifically, through the priority and
requirements, we have included
specifications that the EFC should
disseminate research and best practices.
We consider facilities that serve to keep
students secure, while supporting a
nurturing environment, to be an
example of best practice.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Web site created
by the EFC should include tools to
facilitate interaction between site
visitors. The commenter specifically
recommended using blogs or forums to
support interaction.
Discussion: We envision that the Web
site created by the EFC grantee may
support a number of resources and
services to encourage interaction
between site visitors. However, we do
not want to be overly prescriptive about
the specific functions of the Web site,
which would inhibit applicant
flexibility to propose and build a site
that fulfills the goals of the EFC.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
expressed concern over the training
requirements for the EFC grantee. One
commenter recommended that the
requirement to provide trainings be
changed to an invitational priority so
that the grantee could focus on resource
collection and dissemination. This
commenter also pointed out that an
entity that is highly skilled at collecting
and disseminating information on
school facilities may not be very skilled
at providing technical assistance and
training. Other commenters stated that
by holding only two trainings per year,
the EFC grantee would not be able to
provide services to a large number of
schools that need assistance with their
facilities. One commenter recommended
that the trainings occur more than twice
a year, be open to all stakeholders, and
include a follow-up component to
ensure that trainees can effectively
implement the practices they learned.
Discussion: We believe that training is
an important component of the EFC
grant because it is essential that the
resources collected and disseminated by
the EFC also have practical application.
Providing training helps ensure that the
resources selected by the EFC support
the work of school administrators and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:17 Jul 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
should be a mandatory component of a
project. Therefore, we decline to change
requirement 3 to an invitational priority.
Although requirement 3 states that the
EFC grantee must conduct a minimum
of two trainings per year, this does not
limit the grantee to this minimum. With
regard to the comment about the
training audience, we recognize that
training could be a very valuable tool for
all education stakeholders; however,
this grant program provides a limited
amount of funding and likely cannot
support training for potentially
thousands of education stakeholders.
We believe that the most effective use of
resources is to focus training on those
individuals in leadership positions who
can use their training to effect change
for a large number of schools.
Finally, while we recognize that
follow-up activities would be valuable
to support the lessons taught at the
training sessions, we do not want to be
too prescriptive about the specific
structure of these trainings. Detailed
requirements for training provided by
the EFC will be established in the EFC’s
cooperative agreement with the
Department.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
Establishment of the Clearinghouse
Establish a Clearinghouse to collect
and disseminate research and other
information on effective practices
regarding the planning, design,
financing, procurement, construction,
improvement, operation, and
maintenance of safe, healthy, and highperforming facilities for elementary and
secondary schools in order to—
(a) Help education stakeholders
increase their use of education facilities
to turn around low-performing schools
and close academic achievement gaps;
(b) Increase understanding of how
education facilities affect community
health and safety and student
achievement;
(c) Identify potential cost-saving
opportunities through procurement,
energy efficiency, and preventative
maintenance;
(d) Increase the use of education
facilities and outdoor spaces as
instructional tools and community
centers (e.g., outdoor classrooms, school
gardens, school-based health centers);
and
(e) Increase capacity to identify
hazards and conduct vulnerability
assessments, and, through facility
design, increase safety against hazards,
natural disasters, and intruders.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, we consider only applications
that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education
announces the following requirements
for this program. We may apply one or
more of these requirements in any year
in which this program is in effect.
Requirement 1—Establish and Maintain
a Web Site
An applicant must include in its
application a plan to establish and
maintain a dedicated, easily-accessible
Web site that will include electronic
resources (e.g., links to published
articles and research) about the
planning, design, financing,
procurement, construction,
improvement, operation, and
maintenance of safe, healthy, and highperforming facilities for elementary and
secondary schools. The Web site must
be established within 120 days of
receipt of the award and must be
maintained for the duration of the
project.
Requirement 2—Track and Compile
Best Practices and Develop Resource
Materials
An applicant must include in its
application a plan to track and compile
best practices at the State, LEA, and
school levels and a plan to develop
resources that support the planning,
design, financing, procurement,
construction, improvement, operation,
and maintenance of safe, healthy, and
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
high-performing facilities for elementary
and secondary schools.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Requirement 3—Training
An applicant must include in its
application a plan to develop and
conduct at least two training programs
per year for individuals in leadership
positions (such as business or
operations managers) in elementary or
secondary schools or LEAs, who are
responsible for the construction and or
maintenance of elementary and
secondary education facilities. Training
topics must include information on the
planning, design, financing,
procurement, construction,
improvement, operation, and
maintenance of education facilities in
order to improve the capacity of
elementary and secondary schools or
LEAs to make quality decisions
regarding safe, healthy, and highperforming elementary and secondary
education facilities. Training must be
conducted upon request by the
Department, elementary and secondary
schools, States, or LEAs, and must be
conducted by appropriate Clearinghouse
staff or contractors.
Requirement 4—Technical Assistance
An applicant must include in its
application a plan to provide technical
assistance, including a plan for
providing on-site technical assistance to
elementary schools, secondary schools,
or LEAs, about issues related to the
planning, design, financing,
procurement, construction,
improvement, operation, and
maintenance of education facilities. The
technical assistance may be provided in
the form of electronic or telephone
assistance when requested by these
schools, LEAs, or the Department. Onsite technical assistance visits will be
conducted upon request by, or based on
input from, the Department, elementary
schools, secondary schools, or LEAs and
must be completed using appropriate
Clearinghouse staff or contractors. The
Department must approve in advance all
technical assistance visits.
The technical assistance must consist
of consultation regarding the planning,
design, financing, procurement,
construction, improvement, operation,
and maintenance of education facilities.
Specific technical assistance topics may
include information related to: assessing
facilities and construction plans for
energy efficiency; conducting
vulnerability assessments; and
developing written plans to retrofit
education facilities to address identified
hazards and security concerns.
Technical assistance may also address
low-cost measures that can be taken to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:17 Jul 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
enhance the safety and security of
schools.
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 this priority or one or more of these
requirements, 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 final 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 final
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41697
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 final priority and
these requirements, only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify
their 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 this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We have determined, also, 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, 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.
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
41698
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
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 format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) 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: July 8, 2013.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2013–16668 Filed 7–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0839; FRL–9832–3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Redesignation of the Indianapolis Area
to Attainment of the 1997 Annual
Standard for Fine Particulate Matter
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving Indiana’s
request to redesignate the Indianapolis,
Indiana nonattainment area (Hamilton,
Hendricks, Johnson, Marion, and
Morgan Counties) to attainment for the
1997 annual National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard)
for fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
because the request meets the statutory
requirements for redesignation under
the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Indiana
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:17 Jul 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted this
request to EPA on October 20, 2009, and
supplemented it on May 31, 2011,
January 17, 2013, and March 18, 2013.
EPA’s approval involves several related
actions. EPA is making a determination
that the Indianapolis area has attained
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. EPA is
approving, as a revision to the Indiana
State Implementation Plan (SIP), the
state’s plan for maintaining the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 in
the area. EPA is approving the
comprehensive emissions inventories
submitted by IDEM for Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), primary
PM2.5, Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC), and ammonia as meeting the
requirements of the CAA. Finally, EPA
finds adequate and is approving
Indiana’s NOX and PM2.5 Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 2015 and
2025 for the Indianapolis area.
DATES: This final rule is effective July
11, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0839. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone
Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before
visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886–1767,
dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background for the actions?
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
II. What actions is EPA taking?
III. What is EPA’s response to comments?
IV. Why is EPA taking these actions?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for the
actions?
On October 20, 2009, IDEM submitted
its request to redesignate the
Indianapolis, Indiana nonattainment
area (Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson,
Marion, and Morgan Counties) to
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, and for EPA approval of the
SIP revision containing an emissions
inventory and a maintenance plan for
the area. IDEM supplemented its
submission on May 31, 2011, January
17, 2013, and March 18, 2013. On
September 27, 2011, EPA published
proposed (76 FR 59599) and direct final
(76 FR 59512) rules making a
determination that the Indianapolis area
is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard and that the area has met the
requirements for redesignation under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA
subsequently received adverse
comments on the direct final rule and
withdrew it on November 27, 2011 (76
FR 70361). The proposal was not
withdrawn. EPA published a
supplemental proposal on April 8, 2013
(78 FR 20856). EPA received an adverse
comment on the supplemental proposal.
II. What actions is EPA taking?
EPA is making a determination that
the Indianapolis area has attained and
continues to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard, that the area has
attained this standard by its applicable
attainment date of April 5, 2010, and
that the area meets the requirements for
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA. EPA proposed this
determination based on monitoring data
showing attainment of the standard for
the 2006–2008, 2007–2009, and 2008–
2010 time periods. Quality-assured,
certified monitoring data for 2011 show
that the area continues to attain the
standard, with a 2009–2011 design
value of 13.1 mg/m3 (see https://
www.epa.gov/pm/2012/
20092011table.pdf). Monitoring data
that are now available for 2012 have
been certified and are consistent with
continued attainment as well (see
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/).
Because the area continues to attain
the standard and meets all other
requirements for redesignation under
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), EPA is
approving the request from Indiana to
change the legal designation of the
Indianapolis area from nonattainment to
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41694-41698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16668]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2013-OESE-0062; CFDA Number: 84.215T]
Final Priority and Requirements; Education Facilities
Clearinghouse
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
announces a priority and requirements under the Education Facilities
Clearinghouse (EFC) program and may use one or more of the priority and
requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years.
Through this action, we intend to support the collection and
dissemination of best practices for the planning, design, financing,
procurement, construction, improvement, operation, and maintenance of
safe, healthy, and high-performing elementary and secondary education
facilities. Specifically, this priority and requirements will support
the establishment of a clearinghouse to help stakeholders recognize the
linkages between the school facility and three areas: Academic
instruction, student and community well-being, and school fiscal
health.
DATES: Effective Date: These priority and requirements are effective
August 12, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Rattler, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E254, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-6718 or by email: Pat.Rattler@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:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Education Facilities
Clearinghouse program is to provide technical assistance and training
on the planning, design, financing, procurement, construction,
improvement, operation, and maintenance of safe, healthy, and high-
performing elementary and secondary education facilities.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131; 7243-7243b.
We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements in the
Federal Register on May 9, 2013 (78 FR 27129). That notice contained
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular
priority and requirements.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priority and requirements, four parties submitted comments on
the proposed priority and requirements. We group major issues according
to subject. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor
changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of
the notice of proposed priority and requirements follows.
Comment: One commenter expressed concerns about whether the
initiatives proposed in the priority and requirements could be
maintained or
[[Page 41695]]
lead to change on a long-term basis. The commenter also suggested that
other variables affecting student achievement, such as inequality of
funding or the effect of the community on the school, should be
addressed in the priority and requirements.
Discussion: We believe that the proposal to award a grant under
this program for multiple years will help sustain the effort to support
the collection and dissemination of best practices for the planning,
design, financing, procurement, construction, improvement, operation,
and maintenance of safe, healthy, and high-performing elementary and
secondary education facilities. By providing support to help increase
the capacity of States and local educational agencies (LEAs), the
priority will help support long-term change in these specific areas by
increasing the knowledge and skills that education providers have to
support effective improvements to their facilities. We provide funding
and support through other programs, such as Title I, Part A of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (Title I) to
help meet the additional needs of disadvantaged students and to support
parent and community engagement. For example, Title I targets more than
$13.7 billion in resources to LEAs and schools with high numbers or
percentages of children from low-income families to provide additional
services that improve the teaching and learning of educationally at-
risk children to help ensure they meet State academic standards. In
order to receive Title I funds, LEAs are required under ESEA to ensure
that their Title I schools, which tend to be those with the highest
poverty levels, receive resources from local and State sources that are
comparable to those received by non-Title I schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended we specify in the notice of
final priority and requirements the designations of the priority as
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational.
Discussion: We appreciate these recommendations and have considered
them in developing the notice inviting applications for the fiscal year
2013 EFC competition. However, specifying a priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational in a notice of final priority
commits the Department to using the priority that way in all future
competitions. In order to preserve our ability to use this priority as
needed and to better serve States and LEAs, we are not specifying in
this notice of final priority and requirements whether the priority is
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational. We do so in the
notice inviting applications for the 2013 competition, published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we add specific
qualifications that a successful applicant funded under the EFC program
should have beyond the educational sector, namely expertise in
recognizing and disseminating information about specific definitions of
high-performance buildings identified in the Energy Independence and
Security Act, securing connections to relevant professional societies
and other key stakeholders, executing a complex outreach and engagement
program, managing a robust Web site, and influencing decision makers.
Discussion: We appreciate the importance of the EFC provider having
expertise in specific areas; however, we decline to require more
specific qualifications that an applicant must meet in order to be
eligible for funding. Because the EFC will have to disseminate
information on a range of facilities topics, we do not want to limit
specific areas in which the grantee must have knowledge. In addition,
some of the qualifications recommended by the commenter, namely the
ability to execute outreach and engagement programs and manage a Web
site, may be evaluated through selection criteria for this program.
Finally, the purpose of the EFC is to disseminate information on
facilities and provide assistance to facilities managers; and
specifically influencing decision makers is beyond the scope of this
program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EFC should provide balanced
information on best practices for school safety and security and school
facilities. The commenter emphasized that it is important for school
staff to be able to make informed choices about school facilities.
Discussion: In the notice of proposed priority and requirements, we
included a requirement that an applicant for the EFC grant must have a
plan to track and compile research and best practices, as well as
develop resources that support safe, healthy, and high-performing
school facilities. In addition, this grant will be a cooperative
agreement, which will allow us to work with the grantee to ensure that
the resources presented are supported by evidence, comprehensive, and
balanced. These resources will help support education stakeholders in
making informed decisions about improvements to school facilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we establish an absolute
priority requiring the grantee to collect and disseminate information
on Green Schools. The commenter indicated that having an absolute
priority would help ensure alignment between the ED-Green Ribbon
Schools program and the EFC program and maximize the use of limited
resources.
Discussion: We agree that providing information to support the
maintenance and creation of Green Schools is important, and we envision
that Green Building may be one area in which the EFC may provide
technical assistance, training, and products. However, there are
numerous organizations that provide information to support the adoption
of green practices in schools. Since this information is already
provided by many organizations and because we have limited funds to
provide support for improving educational facilities, we do not believe
that including a priority on Green Schools would be the most effective
use of these funds.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we expand the work of the
EFC to include both collecting and analyzing data about the state of
elementary and secondary school facilities and publishing these
analyses so that they can inform research on the relationship between
school facilities and school quality.
Discussion: We understand that there is a need for data to support
additional research on the effect of school facilities on a number of
elements related to student learning; however, the central purpose of
the EFC grant is to provide technical assistance and training on the
planning, design, financing, procurement, construction, improvement,
operation, and maintenance of elementary and secondary school
facilities. Toward this end, the EFC may provide links to appropriate
collections of this information, or develop briefs summarizing what
research and statistics currently exist. However, with limited funds,
we cannot support original data collection and analysis, especially if
the collection and analysis are duplicative of what currently exists.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the important balance
between student safety and creating a learning environment that
supports trust and collaboration. The commenter recommended that we
include language to support this balance in the priority.
Discussion: We appreciate the importance of the EFC provider
[[Page 41696]]
understanding the various aspects of, and the links between, the
school's physical environment and the creation of a learning
environment that supports safety and nurtures trust and collaboration.
We believe that we have included language that supports the balance
between student safety and creating a learning environment that
supports trust and collaboration. Specifically, through the priority
and requirements, we have included specifications that the EFC should
disseminate research and best practices. We consider facilities that
serve to keep students secure, while supporting a nurturing
environment, to be an example of best practice.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Web site created by the
EFC should include tools to facilitate interaction between site
visitors. The commenter specifically recommended using blogs or forums
to support interaction.
Discussion: We envision that the Web site created by the EFC
grantee may support a number of resources and services to encourage
interaction between site visitors. However, we do not want to be overly
prescriptive about the specific functions of the Web site, which would
inhibit applicant flexibility to propose and build a site that fulfills
the goals of the EFC.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters expressed concern over the training
requirements for the EFC grantee. One commenter recommended that the
requirement to provide trainings be changed to an invitational priority
so that the grantee could focus on resource collection and
dissemination. This commenter also pointed out that an entity that is
highly skilled at collecting and disseminating information on school
facilities may not be very skilled at providing technical assistance
and training. Other commenters stated that by holding only two
trainings per year, the EFC grantee would not be able to provide
services to a large number of schools that need assistance with their
facilities. One commenter recommended that the trainings occur more
than twice a year, be open to all stakeholders, and include a follow-up
component to ensure that trainees can effectively implement the
practices they learned.
Discussion: We believe that training is an important component of
the EFC grant because it is essential that the resources collected and
disseminated by the EFC also have practical application. Providing
training helps ensure that the resources selected by the EFC support
the work of school administrators and should be a mandatory component
of a project. Therefore, we decline to change requirement 3 to an
invitational priority.
Although requirement 3 states that the EFC grantee must conduct a
minimum of two trainings per year, this does not limit the grantee to
this minimum. With regard to the comment about the training audience,
we recognize that training could be a very valuable tool for all
education stakeholders; however, this grant program provides a limited
amount of funding and likely cannot support training for potentially
thousands of education stakeholders. We believe that the most effective
use of resources is to focus training on those individuals in
leadership positions who can use their training to effect change for a
large number of schools.
Finally, while we recognize that follow-up activities would be
valuable to support the lessons taught at the training sessions, we do
not want to be too prescriptive about the specific structure of these
trainings. Detailed requirements for training provided by the EFC will
be established in the EFC's cooperative agreement with the Department.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
Establishment of the Clearinghouse
Establish a Clearinghouse to collect and disseminate research and
other information on effective practices regarding the planning,
design, financing, procurement, construction, improvement, operation,
and maintenance of safe, healthy, and high-performing facilities for
elementary and secondary schools in order to--
(a) Help education stakeholders increase their use of education
facilities to turn around low-performing schools and close academic
achievement gaps;
(b) Increase understanding of how education facilities affect
community health and safety and student achievement;
(c) Identify potential cost-saving opportunities through
procurement, energy efficiency, and preventative maintenance;
(d) Increase the use of education facilities and outdoor spaces as
instructional tools and community centers (e.g., outdoor classrooms,
school gardens, school-based health centers); and
(e) Increase capacity to identify hazards and conduct vulnerability
assessments, and, through facility design, increase safety against
hazards, natural disasters, and intruders.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
announces the following requirements for this program. We may apply one
or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in
effect.
Requirement 1--Establish and Maintain a Web Site
An applicant must include in its application a plan to establish
and maintain a dedicated, easily-accessible Web site that will include
electronic resources (e.g., links to published articles and research)
about the planning, design, financing, procurement, construction,
improvement, operation, and maintenance of safe, healthy, and high-
performing facilities for elementary and secondary schools. The Web
site must be established within 120 days of receipt of the award and
must be maintained for the duration of the project.
Requirement 2--Track and Compile Best Practices and Develop Resource
Materials
An applicant must include in its application a plan to track and
compile best practices at the State, LEA, and school levels and a plan
to develop resources that support the planning, design, financing,
procurement, construction, improvement, operation, and maintenance of
safe, healthy, and
[[Page 41697]]
high-performing facilities for elementary and secondary schools.
Requirement 3--Training
An applicant must include in its application a plan to develop and
conduct at least two training programs per year for individuals in
leadership positions (such as business or operations managers) in
elementary or secondary schools or LEAs, who are responsible for the
construction and or maintenance of elementary and secondary education
facilities. Training topics must include information on the planning,
design, financing, procurement, construction, improvement, operation,
and maintenance of education facilities in order to improve the
capacity of elementary and secondary schools or LEAs to make quality
decisions regarding safe, healthy, and high-performing elementary and
secondary education facilities. Training must be conducted upon request
by the Department, elementary and secondary schools, States, or LEAs,
and must be conducted by appropriate Clearinghouse staff or
contractors.
Requirement 4--Technical Assistance
An applicant must include in its application a plan to provide
technical assistance, including a plan for providing on-site technical
assistance to elementary schools, secondary schools, or LEAs, about
issues related to the planning, design, financing, procurement,
construction, improvement, operation, and maintenance of education
facilities. The technical assistance may be provided in the form of
electronic or telephone assistance when requested by these schools,
LEAs, or the Department. On-site technical assistance visits will be
conducted upon request by, or based on input from, the Department,
elementary schools, secondary schools, or LEAs and must be completed
using appropriate Clearinghouse staff or contractors. The Department
must approve in advance all technical assistance visits.
The technical assistance must consist of consultation regarding the
planning, design, financing, procurement, construction, improvement,
operation, and maintenance of education facilities. Specific technical
assistance topics may include information related to: assessing
facilities and construction plans for energy efficiency; conducting
vulnerability assessments; and developing written plans to retrofit
education facilities to address identified hazards and security
concerns. Technical assistance may also address low-cost measures that
can be taken to enhance the safety and security of schools.
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 this priority or one or more of these
requirements, 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 final 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 final 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 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 final priority and these requirements, only on
a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their 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 this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We have determined, also, 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, 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.
[[Page 41698]]
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 format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) 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: July 8, 2013.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2013-16668 Filed 7-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P