Final Priority-Promise Zones, 17035-17037 [2014-06828]
Download as PDF
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
with this deviation. You may also visit
the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12–140 on the ground floor of
the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this temporary
deviation, call or email Ms. Judy LeungYee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone (212) 668–7165,
email judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Metro-North (Devon) Bridge at mile 3.9,
across Housatonic River at Stratford,
Connecticut, has 19 feet of vertical
clearance at mean high water and 25
feet of vertical clearance at mean low
water. The existing drawbridge
operation regulations are listed at 33
CFR 117.207(b).
The owner of the bridge, Connecticut
Department of Transportation, requested
a temporary deviation from the schedule
to facilitate structural repairs at the
bridge.
The waterway has recreational vessels
traffic of various sizes.
Under this temporary deviation the
Metro-North (Devon) Bridge at mile 3.9,
across the Housatonic River may remain
in the closed position from 6 a.m.
Monday through 6 p.m. on Thursday,
from April 1, 2014 through May 22,
2014. Vessels able to pass through the
bridge in the closed positions may do so
at anytime. There is no alternate route
for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will
also inform the users of the waterways
through our Local and Broadcast Notice
to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels
can arrange their transits to minimize
any impact caused by the temporary
deviation.
The Coast Guard contacted the
marinas and no objections were
received.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the drawbridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the effective period of this
temporary deviation. This deviation
from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: March 18, 2014.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist,
First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014–06843 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapters I–VI
[Docket ID ED–2013–OII–0110]
RIN 1894–AA05
Final Priority—Promise Zones
Department of Education.
Final priority.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Secretary of Education
(Secretary) announces a priority that the
Department of Education (Department)
may use for any appropriate
discretionary grant program in fiscal
year (FY) 2014 and future years.
Through this action, we intend to focus
Federal financial assistance on
expanding the number of Department
programs and projects that support
activities in designated Promise Zones.
This action will permit all offices in
the Department to use this priority, as
appropriate, in any discretionary grant
competition.
SUMMARY:
This priority is effective April
28, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane
Hodgdon. Telephone: 202–453–6620. Or
by email: Jane.Hodgdon@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.
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3,
3474.
We published a proposed priority
(NPP) in the Federal Register on
October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63913). That
notice contained background
information and our reasons for
proposing the priority. There are no
differences between the NPP and this
notice of final priority.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the NPP, 10 parties
submitted comments on the proposed
priority. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address general
comments that raised concerns not
directly related to the proposed priority.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments follows.
Comment: Several commenters
addressed the Promise Zones Initiative
as described in the Background Section
of the NPP. Many expressed support for
the Promise Zones Initiative, its
potential to impact community
residents, and the inclusion of a focus
on education in the designated Promise
Zones. Other commenters expressed
concerns about the small number of
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17035
Promise Zones designations to be made,
about the funding and resources that
would be made available to Promise
Zones designees, about how the
progress of the Promise Zones Initiative
would be evaluated, and whether the
10-year timeframe of the designation
would be sufficient to realize long-term
impacts. Additionally, one commenter
requested clarification on the role that
Federal staff would play in working
with Promise Zones designees, and two
commenters suggested that the Promise
Zone Initiative should expand resident
access to housing opportunities in
higher income communities.
Discussion: We appreciate the
feedback and suggestions on the
Promise Zones Initiative. The
Department coordinates with the U.S.
Departments of Housing and Urban
Development, Agriculture, and Justice
to support the administration of the
Promise Zones Initiative. As such, we
will share the comments regarding the
broader initiative with our Federal
Promise Zones partners for
consideration in the development and
implementation of any Promise Zones
opportunity. However, because the
comments about the broader initiative
do not provide specific
recommendations for the Department’s
proposed priority, we are not providing
a direct response to each topic raised in
these comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters stated
their support for the Promise Zones
priority and the important role that
education can play in revitalizing a
community. While supportive of the
purpose of Promise Zones, one
commenter expressed concern about
including a priority for a potential pool
of 20 Promise Zone designees. The
commenter further stated that because
the scope of the Promise Zones
Initiative is small, it does not make
sense to prioritize those few
communities.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for the President’s
efforts to combat poverty, and we agree
that education is critical to building
ladders of opportunity to the middle
class. While the ultimate number of
Promise Zones communities is
relatively small, the number of
discretionary grants that might support
Promise Zones is not so limited. The
priority can be used with any
appropriate discretionary grant
competition, and all eligible entities that
are planning to serve and coordinate
with a Promise Zone, such as local
educational agencies and non-profit
organizations, may respond to this
priority. The purpose of the
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17036
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Department’s Promise Zone priority is
to focus the Department’s grant
resources on communities of acute
need, as indicated by their Promise
Zone designation.
Furthermore, the Promise Zones
Initiative provides a unique opportunity
for cross-agency collaboration that will
likely benefit other communities as
well. For example, the participating
Federal agencies will be working with
the designated Promise Zones to
improve coordination among Federal
resources to enhance place-based
strategies and increase the progress of
community revitalization initiatives. As
outcomes are achieved and best
practices are developed, Federal
agencies will apply relevant lessons
learned regarding the delivery of
Federal funding and services to other
communities working toward similar
goals. In addition, we expect that the
joint investment in and evaluation of
Promise Zones will result in the
creation of strong, comprehensive
models of community transformation
that will inform the work of other
communities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
expressed concern that a Promise Zones
priority may result in the exclusion of
other potential applicants from
receiving an award. Of those
commenters, one commenter’s concern
was specific to the TRIO Upward Bound
program. Another commenter requested
that the Department work with the
charter school community prior to the
use of the priority in the Charter
Schools program, a discretionary grant
program. One commenter raised a
concern that layering a Promise Zone
priority onto a program with a different
focus might weaken the existing
program.
Discussion: We recognize that Federal
discretionary grant funds are highly
competitive and provide critical support
to communities that are working to
improve student academic achievement.
However, the Department’s Promise
Zones priority is intended to focus
limited Federal resources in designated
Promise Zones in order to improve the
outcomes of the families, students, and
children in those highly distressed
locations. As stated in the NPP, the
Secretary recognizes that this priority
will not be appropriate for all
discretionary grant programs. Each
discretionary grant program is in the
best position to work with its
constituent communities and to
determine the priorities critical to
achieving their program outcomes.
Additionally, when determining
whether to use a priority in a given
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
discretionary grant competition, the
Department considers the intended
goals of the program in order to ensure
the use of any priority is appropriate to
and aligned with the purpose of the
discretionary program. The Promise
Zones priority will not be used if it is
not appropriate to the intent or purpose
of a program or would somehow
diminish its effect.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
To ensure that the Department’s
discretionary grant programs can
provide, where appropriate, the
increased access to additional
investments for Promise Zones, the
Secretary establishes a priority for
projects that will serve and coordinate
with a federally designated Promise
Zone.
Final priority—Promise Zones.
Projects that are designed to serve and
coordinate with a federally designated
Promise Zone.
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)).
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use this priority, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
set forth in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is 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
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
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 only
on a reasoned determination that its
benefits would justify its costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected the approach
that would maximize net benefits. Based
on the analysis that follows, the
Departments believe that this regulatory
action is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
proposed regulatory action would 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
associated with this regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: Some of
the programs affected by this proposed
priority are 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.
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 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/fedsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 document 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: March 24, 2014.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2014–06828 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0775; FRL–9906–73–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AR92
Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory
Definition of Volatile Organic
Compounds—Exclusion of 2-amino-2methyl-1-propanol (AMP)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to revise the regulatory definition
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This
direct final action adds 2-amino-2methyl-1-propanol (also known as AMP;
CAS number 124–68–5) to the list of
compounds excluded from the
regulatory definition of VOCs on the
basis that this compound makes a
negligible contribution to tropospheric
ozone formation.
DATES: This rule is effective June 25,
2014 without further notice, unless the
EPA receives adverse comment on this
action by May 27, 2014. If the EPA
receives adverse comment, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the final rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2013–0775, by one of the
following methods:
• Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments:
www.regulations.gov.
• Email: a-and-r-Docket@
epamail.epa.gov, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0775.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17037
• Fax: 202–566–9744, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–
0775.
• Mail: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2013–0775, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William
Jefferson Clinton, West Building Room:
3334, Mail Code: 28221T, Washington,
DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0775. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–
0775. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov,
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov,
your email address will be
automatically captured and included as
part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If the EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider
your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any
form of encryption and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional
information about the EPA’s public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: 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., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17035-17037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06828]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapters I-VI
[Docket ID ED-2013-OII-0110]
RIN 1894-AA05
Final Priority--Promise Zones
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) announces a priority
that the Department of Education (Department) may use for any
appropriate discretionary grant program in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and
future years. Through this action, we intend to focus Federal financial
assistance on expanding the number of Department programs and projects
that support activities in designated Promise Zones.
This action will permit all offices in the Department to use this
priority, as appropriate, in any discretionary grant competition.
DATES: This priority is effective April 28, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Hodgdon. Telephone: 202-453-6620.
Or by email: Jane.Hodgdon@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:
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474.
We published a proposed priority (NPP) in the Federal Register on
October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63913). That notice contained background
information and our reasons for proposing the priority. There are no
differences between the NPP and this notice of final priority.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 10
parties submitted comments on the proposed priority. Generally, we do
not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not
address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to
the proposed priority.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments
follows.
Comment: Several commenters addressed the Promise Zones Initiative
as described in the Background Section of the NPP. Many expressed
support for the Promise Zones Initiative, its potential to impact
community residents, and the inclusion of a focus on education in the
designated Promise Zones. Other commenters expressed concerns about the
small number of Promise Zones designations to be made, about the
funding and resources that would be made available to Promise Zones
designees, about how the progress of the Promise Zones Initiative would
be evaluated, and whether the 10-year timeframe of the designation
would be sufficient to realize long-term impacts. Additionally, one
commenter requested clarification on the role that Federal staff would
play in working with Promise Zones designees, and two commenters
suggested that the Promise Zone Initiative should expand resident
access to housing opportunities in higher income communities.
Discussion: We appreciate the feedback and suggestions on the
Promise Zones Initiative. The Department coordinates with the U.S.
Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, and Justice
to support the administration of the Promise Zones Initiative. As such,
we will share the comments regarding the broader initiative with our
Federal Promise Zones partners for consideration in the development and
implementation of any Promise Zones opportunity. However, because the
comments about the broader initiative do not provide specific
recommendations for the Department's proposed priority, we are not
providing a direct response to each topic raised in these comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters stated their support for the Promise Zones
priority and the important role that education can play in revitalizing
a community. While supportive of the purpose of Promise Zones, one
commenter expressed concern about including a priority for a potential
pool of 20 Promise Zone designees. The commenter further stated that
because the scope of the Promise Zones Initiative is small, it does not
make sense to prioritize those few communities.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the
President's efforts to combat poverty, and we agree that education is
critical to building ladders of opportunity to the middle class. While
the ultimate number of Promise Zones communities is relatively small,
the number of discretionary grants that might support Promise Zones is
not so limited. The priority can be used with any appropriate
discretionary grant competition, and all eligible entities that are
planning to serve and coordinate with a Promise Zone, such as local
educational agencies and non-profit organizations, may respond to this
priority. The purpose of the
[[Page 17036]]
Department's Promise Zone priority is to focus the Department's grant
resources on communities of acute need, as indicated by their Promise
Zone designation.
Furthermore, the Promise Zones Initiative provides a unique
opportunity for cross-agency collaboration that will likely benefit
other communities as well. For example, the participating Federal
agencies will be working with the designated Promise Zones to improve
coordination among Federal resources to enhance place-based strategies
and increase the progress of community revitalization initiatives. As
outcomes are achieved and best practices are developed, Federal
agencies will apply relevant lessons learned regarding the delivery of
Federal funding and services to other communities working toward
similar goals. In addition, we expect that the joint investment in and
evaluation of Promise Zones will result in the creation of strong,
comprehensive models of community transformation that will inform the
work of other communities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that a Promise Zones
priority may result in the exclusion of other potential applicants from
receiving an award. Of those commenters, one commenter's concern was
specific to the TRIO Upward Bound program. Another commenter requested
that the Department work with the charter school community prior to the
use of the priority in the Charter Schools program, a discretionary
grant program. One commenter raised a concern that layering a Promise
Zone priority onto a program with a different focus might weaken the
existing program.
Discussion: We recognize that Federal discretionary grant funds are
highly competitive and provide critical support to communities that are
working to improve student academic achievement. However, the
Department's Promise Zones priority is intended to focus limited
Federal resources in designated Promise Zones in order to improve the
outcomes of the families, students, and children in those highly
distressed locations. As stated in the NPP, the Secretary recognizes
that this priority will not be appropriate for all discretionary grant
programs. Each discretionary grant program is in the best position to
work with its constituent communities and to determine the priorities
critical to achieving their program outcomes. Additionally, when
determining whether to use a priority in a given discretionary grant
competition, the Department considers the intended goals of the program
in order to ensure the use of any priority is appropriate to and
aligned with the purpose of the discretionary program. The Promise
Zones priority will not be used if it is not appropriate to the intent
or purpose of a program or would somehow diminish its effect.
Changes: None.
Final Priority
To ensure that the Department's discretionary grant programs can
provide, where appropriate, the increased access to additional
investments for Promise Zones, the Secretary establishes a priority for
projects that will serve and coordinate with a federally designated
Promise Zone.
Final priority--Promise Zones.
Projects that are designed to serve and coordinate with a federally
designated Promise Zone.
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)).
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority, 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 set forth in
the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is 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 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
[[Page 17037]]
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 only on a reasoned determination
that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that would
maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the
Departments believe that this regulatory action is consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this proposed regulatory action would
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 associated
with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have determined as necessary for
administering the Department's programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: Some of the programs affected by this
proposed priority are 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.
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 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/fedsys. 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 document 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: March 24, 2014.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2014-06828 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P