Final Priorities, Requirement, and Definitions; Innovative Approaches to Literacy (IAL) Program, 34428-34432 [2014-14047]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34428
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2014–0393]
RIN 1625–AA00
Eighth Coast Guard District Annual
Safety Zones; Guyasuta Days Festival;
Allegheny River Mile 5.7 to 6.0;
Pittsburgh, PA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Enforcement of
Regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard will enforce
a safety zone for the Guyasuta Days
Festival Fireworks on the Allegheny
River, from mile 5.7 to 6.0, extending
200 feet from the right descending bank.
This zone will be in effect on August 9,
2014 from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
This zone is needed to protect vessels
transiting the area and event spectators
from the hazards associated with the
Guyasuta Days Festival Land-based
Fireworks. During the enforcement
period, entry into, transiting, or
anchoring in the safety zone is
prohibited to all vessels not registered
with the sponsor as participants or
official patrol vessels, unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of
the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a
designated representative.
DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR
165.801 will be enforced with actual
notice on August 9, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this document of
enforcement, call or email Ronald
Lipscomb, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at
telephone (412) 644–5808, email
Ronald.c.lipscomb1@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Coast Guard will enforce the
Safety Zone for the annual Guyasuta
Days Festival Fireworks listed in 33 CFR
165.801 Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector
Ohio Valley, No. 28.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR
165.801, entry into the safety zone listed
in Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector Ohio
Valley, No. 28 is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or
a designated representative. Persons or
vessels desiring to enter into or passage
through the safety zone must request
permission from the Captain of the Port
Pittsburgh or a designated
representative. If permission is granted,
all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the Captain of
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jun 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
the Port Pittsburgh or designated
representative.
This document is issued under
authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 33 U.S.C.
1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–
1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Public Law
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1. In addition to this document in
the Federal Register, the Coast Guard
will provide the maritime community
with advance notification of this
enforcement period via Local Notice to
Mariners and updates via Marine
Information Broadcasts.
If the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or
designated representative determines
that the Safety Zone need not be
enforced for the full duration stated in
this document of enforcement, he or she
may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
to grant general permission to enter the
regulated area.
Room 3E235, Washington, DC 20202–
6200. Telephone: (202) 453–5621 or by
email: david.miller@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 IAL program is to support highquality projects designed to develop and
improve literacy skills for children and
students from birth through 12th grade
within the attendance boundaries of
high-need LEAs and schools.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7243–7243b.
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education (Department).
ACTION: Final priorities, requirement,
and definitions.
We published a notice of proposed
priorities, requirement, and definitions
for this program in the Federal Register
on February 28, 2014 (79 FR 11363).
That notice contained background
information and our reasons for
proposing the particular priorities,
requirement, and definitions.
There are differences between the
proposed priorities, requirement, and
definitions and these final priorities,
requirement, and definitions as
discussed in the Analysis of Comments
and Changes section elsewhere in this
notice.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the notice of proposed
priorities, requirement, and definitions,
nine parties submitted comments on the
proposed priorities, requirement, and
definitions.
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 priorities, requirement,
and definitions since publication of the
notice of proposed priorities,
requirement, and definitions follows.
The Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education
announces priorities, a requirement, and
definitions under the IAL program. The
Assistant Secretary may use one or more
of the priorities, requirement, and
definitions for competitions in fiscal
year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take
this action to ensure IAL projects are
supported, at a minimum, by evidence
of strong theory, and to focus Federal
financial assistance on projects that
serve rural local educational agencies
(LEAs).
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities,
requirement, and definitions are
effective July 17, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Moore Miller, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Priorities
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we amend proposed
priority 1 to require, as a minimum level
of evidence, that projects be supported
by evidence of promise rather than
strong theory. The commenter explained
that the strong theory level of evidence
proposed in priority 1 appears to set a
lower standard of evidence than was
used in the previous competition, which
required applicants to cite at least one
study in support of the proposed project
that meets the definition of
‘‘scientifically valid research.’’ The
commenter also recommended that the
Department look for stronger standards
of evidence for all applicants.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that the Department should
Dated: May 28, 2014.
L.N. Weaver,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of
the Port, Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2014–14175 Filed 6–16–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED–2013–OESE–0159; CFDA
Number: 84.215G]
Final Priorities, Requirement, and
Definitions; Innovative Approaches to
Literacy (IAL) Program
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
encourage the use of strong standards of
evidence in general. Because we found
the term imprecise, we do not refer to
‘‘scientifically based research’’ in the
priority. While an applicant to this
program would now only need to
provide evidence of strong theory in
support of its proposed project, we
think that this approach prepares the
applicant to thoughtfully and
successfully implement its project.
Setting the minimum requirement of
evidence at the strong theory level also
allows for the most innovative project
proposals because applicants are not
restricted by a higher standard of
evidence that would require some
degree of replication of a previously
executed approach.
Through selection criteria in 34 CFR
75.210, the Department can encourage
the applicant to design a project
evaluation that may help build on the
level of evidence available for future
projects. For example, if a project that
uses strong theory is successful, the
evaluation report that a grantee will
prepare, as outlined in the selection
criteria, could serve as sufficient
evidence of promise for applicants to
cite in support of future proposals. We
take this approach in order to empower
applicants to propose innovative ideas
that, if successful, will broaden the base
of available evidence in the field.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that
we identify each proposed priority as
absolute, competitive, or invitational.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s interest in learning the
type of priorities that will be assigned
in upcoming competitions. It is our
practice, however, to specify the priority
types for each competition in the notice
inviting applications, not in a notice of
proposed priorities or a notice of final
priorities.
Changes: None.
Eligibility
Comment: One commenter
recommended including as an eligible
entity a regional education service
agency (RESA), as defined by the
National Center for Education Statistics.
The commenter noted that in many
locations, these agencies act as
intermediary agents between education
departments and high-need rural LEAs
that may otherwise lack capacity to
apply for Federal grants.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s recommendation to
include RESAs and other intermediary
agencies as eligible applicants for this
program; however, such entities
generally already meet the definition of
LEA included in the Elementary and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jun 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA). Section 9101(26)(A) of
the ESEA defines an ‘‘LEA’’ as an entity
that is recognized in a State as an
administrative agency for its public
elementary schools or secondary
schools, and section 9101(26)(D) of the
ESEA specifically includes educational
service agencies and consortia of those
agencies under the term ‘‘LEA.’’
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended expanding the eligibility
requirement to include high-need
populations that are not served by highneed LEAs. One noted that some
preschool sites served by national notfor-profit organizations (NNPs) may not
fall within the attendance boundaries of
a high-need LEA, yet may still be
serving high-need children. The other
commenter recommended including
low-performing and unaccredited
districts as eligible entities, and also
expanding the target population to
include students of families with
incomes below the poverty line, but
who attend schools in LEAs that do not
meet the threshold of 25 percent of
students from families with incomes
below the poverty line.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ recommendations to
consider expanding eligibility and the
target population served. However, the
Department must focus its limited
resources on the areas of highest need.
The eligibility requirement we have
established is designed to ensure that
IAL funds will reach those communities
most in need.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that we provide
additional guidance regarding
acceptable Census Bureau data sets for
determining high-need LEAs, noting
that the Census Bureau’s Small Area
Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)
data set does not include children from
birth through age four in its school
district poverty estimates. The
commenter also noted that the Census
Bureau’s American Community Survey
(ACS) data set includes family poverty
information for students birth through
age four.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s recommendation for
clarification concerning the acceptable
Census Bureau data set for determining
target population eligibility. Although
we recognize that the SAIPE for school
districts lacks specific information for
children under age five, at this time
SAIPE are the most satisfactory data
available from the U.S. Census Bureau
for the purposes of this program.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34429
While we agree that poverty data for
birth through age four would be useful
for determining eligibility for this
program, the Census Bureau’s modelbased SAIPE data provide single-year
estimates for students aged 5–17 that are
more reflective of current conditions
than are the multi-year survey estimates
provided by ACS data. That is, SAIPE
methodology combines ACS estimates
with other data sources to provide more
timely, precise, and stable estimates
than the five-year ACS estimates alone.
Significantly, SAIPE data incorporate
‘‘grade relevance,’’ whereas ACS
estimates do not. For areas with small
populations, SAIPE data contain less
uncertainty and have lower error
variance than ACS estimates. SAIPE
data therefore provide more accurate
representations of student poverty
information than ACS data.
A list of high-need LEAs, by State,
that are eligible for IAL funding in FY
2014 will be available at the program
Web site (https://www2.ed.gov/
programs/innovapproaches-literacy/
index.html) when this notice and the
notice inviting applications are
published.
Although we do not support using a
different source of data for determining
eligibility under this program, we do
believe a modification to the definition
of ‘‘high-need LEA’’ is appropriate. In
order to ensure the definition of ‘‘highneed LEA’’ is consistent with the SAIPE
data used to determine eligibility, we
believe that we should change the
reference from ‘‘geographic area’’ to
‘‘school attendance area’’ and adjust the
age range from 0–17 to 5–17.
Also, we note that SAIPE are data
used under section 1124(c)(3) of Title I
of the ESEA for the purpose of making
allocations and that not all LEAs are
listed on the Census Bureau’s lists.
Therefore, we also clarify that States
determine eligibility status for LEAs that
are not listed with SAIPE data (e.g.,
charter school LEAs, State-administered
schools, and regional service agencies),
and we provide information about how
States may verify the elegibility of such
LEAs.
Changes: We have revised the
definition of a ‘‘high-need LEA.’’ Under
the revised definition, a ‘‘high-need
LEA’’ is one in which at least 25 percent
of the students aged 5–17 in the ‘‘school
attendance area’’ of the LEA (rather than
‘‘geographic area’’) are from families
with incomes below the poverty line
based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Small Area Income and Poverty
Estimates for school districts for the
most recent income year (Census list). In
addition, we added language to the
definition of a ‘‘high-need LEA’’
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
34430
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
addressing how to determine if an LEA
that is not on the Census list, such as
a charter school LEA, is a ‘‘high-need
LEA.’’ Such an LEA is considered a
‘‘high-need LEA’’ if the State
educational agency (SEA) determines,
consistent with the manner in which the
SEA determines an LEA’s eligibility for
Title I allocations, that 25 percent of the
students aged 5–17 in the LEA are from
families with incomes below the
poverty line.
Also, based on the revised definition
of ‘‘high-need LEA,’’ we have made a
corresponding technical change to
Proposed Priority 1 to delete the phrase
‘‘within attendance boundaries’’
because the revised definition of ‘‘highneed LEA’’ now contemplates LEAs
(such as charter school LEAs) that may
draw students from beyond attendance
boundaries.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Reporting
Comment: One commenter
recommended broadening the
Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 (GPRA) measures to include
reporting on children birth through 12th
grade, noting that the current measures
exclude reporting for children younger
than age four, students who are in
kindergarten, and students in grades
four and five.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s recommendation to
broaden GPRA reporting measures for
this program. However, we intend the
GPRA measures for this program to
provide an overview of program
performance rather than to assess
performance at the level of each age or
grade-level served. Given the variety of
projects possible under this program, we
believe that applicants are best
equipped to develop detailed
performance measures that address the
goals and objectives unique to
individual projects. We note that
although GPRA reporting is not required
for projects to which GPRA reporting
measures do not apply, the Department
will be able to collect data on progress
for children younger than age four,
students in kindergarten, and students
in grades four and five from projectspecific performance measures
developed as part of the grantees’ local
evaluation design.
Changes: None.
General
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the onus to
coordinate with school libraries should
be placed on LEAs and NNPs, rather
than requiring school libraries to
coordinate with LEAs and NNPs. The
commenter indicated that this change
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jun 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
would ensure better consistency with
the guiding language from S. Rep. 113–
17 and the Federal grantmaking process.
Discussion: We agree that placing the
onus on LEAs and NNPs, rather than on
school libraries, to coordinate resources
in developing IAL proposals will ensure
better consistency with the cited report
language and the Federal grantmaking
process.
Changes: We have revised the
eligibility requirement by adding
language to indicate that LEAs and
NNPs must coordinate with school
libraries in developing project
proposals.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that current IAL grantees
who apply for IAL funds in future
competitions should be permitted to
continue serving the same populations.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s recommendation.
However, proposing to serve the same
populations that were served in a
previous award is already allowable and
does not disqualify an applicant from
receiving funds in a new award,
provided the applicant meets the
eligibility requirements of the program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that
funding be directed toward initiatives
that include cross-sector literacy and
parental engagement programs, as well
as those operating outside of traditional
education settings, including within the
healthcare infrastructure.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s recommendation that we
direct funding toward cross-sector and
non-traditional settings; however, the
types of projects the commenter
described are already possible under
this program because there are no
limitations on the locations at which
services can be provided or the partners
a grantee may choose. Additionally, we
do not want to specify in this manner
the types of projects that an applicant
may propose, as we wish to maximize
flexibility for applicants seeking to
develop innovative project proposals.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
Final Priority 1—High-Quality Plan for
Innovative Approaches to Literacy That
Include Book Distribution, Childhood
Literacy Activities, or Both, and That Is
Supported, at a Minimum, by Evidence
of Strong Theory (as Defined in 34 CFR
77.1(c))
To meet this priority, applicants must
submit a plan that is supported by
evidence of strong theory, including a
rationale for the proposed process,
product, strategy, or practice and a
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
corresponding logic model (as defined
in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
The applicant must submit a plan
with the following information:
(a) A description of the proposed book
distribution, childhood literacy
activities, or both, that are designed to
improve the literacy skills of children
and students by one or more of the
following—
(1) Promoting early literacy and
preparing young children to read;
(2) developing and improving
students’ reading ability;
(3) motivating older children to read;
and
(4) teaching children and students to
read.
(b) the age or grade spans of children
and students from birth through 12th
grade to be served.
(c) a detailed description of the key
goals, the activities to be undertaken,
the rationale for those activities, the
timeline, the parties responsible for
implementing the activities, and the
credibility of the plan (as judged, in
part, by the information submitted as
evidence of strong theory); and
(d)(i) a description of how the
proposed project is supported by strong
theory; and
(ii) the corresponding logic model (as
defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
Final Priority 2—Serving Rural LEAs
To meet this priority, an applicant
must propose a project designed to
provide high-quality literacy
programming, or distribute books, or
both, to students served by a rural LEA
(as defined in this notice).
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
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Final Requirement
The Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following requirement
for this program. We may apply this
requirement in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Eligibility: To be considered for an
award under this competition, an
applicant must:
(a) Be one of the following:
(1) A high-need LEA (as defined in
this notice);
(2) An NNP (as defined in this notice)
that serves children and students within
the attendance boundaries of one or
more high-need LEAs;
(3) A consortium of NNPs that serves
children and students within the
attendance boundaries of one or more
high-need LEAs;
(4) A consortium of high-need LEAs;
or
(5) A consortium of one or more highneed LEAs and one or more NNPs that
serve children and students within the
attendance boundaries of one or more
high-need LEAs.
(b) Coordinate with school libraries in
developing project proposals.
Final Definitions
The Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following definitions for
this program. We may apply one or
more of these definitions in any year in
which this program is in effect:
College- and career-ready standards
means content standards for
kindergarten through 12th grade that
build towards college and career
readiness by the time of high school
graduation. A State’s college- and
career-ready standards must be either
(1) standards that are common to a
significant number of States; or (2)
standards that are approved by a State
network of institutions of higher
education, which must certify that
students who meet the standards will
not need remedial course work at the
postsecondary level.
Comprehensive statewide literacy
plan means a plan (which may be a
component or modification of the plan
submitted under the Striving Readers
Comprehensive Literacy formula grant
program, CFDA 84.371B) that addresses
the literacy and language needs of
children from birth through 12th grade,
including English learners and students
with disabilities; aligns literacy policies,
resources, and practices; contains clear
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jun 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
instructional goals; and sets high
expectations for all students and student
subgroups.
High-need local educational agency
(High-need LEA) means—
(i) Except for LEAs referenced in
paragraph (ii), an LEA in which at least
25 percent of the students aged 5–17 in
the school attendance area of the LEA
are from families with incomes below
the poverty line, based on data from the
U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area
Income and Poverty Estimates for school
districts for the most recent income year
(Census list).
(ii) For an LEA that is not included on
the Census list, such as a charter school
LEA, an LEA for which the State
educational agency (SEA) determines,
consistent with the manner described
under section 1124(c) of the ESEA in
which the SEA determines an LEA’s
eligibility for Title I allocations, that 25
percent of the students aged 5–17 in the
LEA are from families with incomes
below the poverty line.
National not-for-profit (NNP)
organization means an agency,
organization, or institution owned and
operated by one or more corporations or
associations whose net earnings do not
benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit, any
private shareholder or entity. In
addition, it means, for the purposes of
this program, an organization of
national scope that is supported by staff
or affiliates at the State and local levels,
who may include volunteers, and that
has a demonstrated history of effectively
developing and implementing literacy
activities.
Note: A local affiliate of an NNP does not
meet the definition of NNP. Only a national
agency, organization, or institution is eligible
to apply as an NNP.
Rural local educational agency (Rural
LEA) means an LEA that is eligible
under the Small Rural School
Achievement program (SRSA) or the
Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS)
program authorized under Title VI, Part
B of the ESEA at the time of application.
Universal design for learning (UDL)
means a scientifically valid framework
for guiding educational practice that (i)
provides flexibility in the ways
information is presented, in the ways
students respond or demonstrate
knowledge and skills, and in the ways
students are engaged; and (ii) reduces
barriers in instruction, provides
appropriate accommodations, supports,
and challenges, and maintains high
achievement expectations for all
students, including students with
disabilities and students who are
English learners.
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34431
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these priorities,
requirement, and definitions, 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
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
34432
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 these final priorities,
requirement, and definitions 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 also have determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Jun 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
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: June 11, 2014.
Deborah Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2014–14047 Filed 6–16–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0298; FRL–9912–21–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Portable Fuel Container
Amendment to Pennsylvania State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve a revision to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision
involves removing the Commonwealth’s
portable fuel container (PFC) regulations
for control of evaporative emissions
from new and in-use PFCs from the
Pennsylvania SIP. In the submittal,
Pennsylvania demonstrates that Federal
PFC regulations promulgated by EPA in
2007 are expected to provide equal to or
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
greater emissions reductions than those
resulting from the Commonwealth’s.
EPA is approving this revision removing
the Commonwealth’s PFC regulations
because the revision is in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on August
18, 2014 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse written comment
by July 17, 2014. If EPA receives such
comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2014–0298 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0298,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Program Planning,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. 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–R03–OAR–2014–
0298. 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 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 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, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34428-34432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14047]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2013-OESE-0159; CFDA Number: 84.215G]
Final Priorities, Requirement, and Definitions; Innovative
Approaches to Literacy (IAL) Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education (Department).
ACTION: Final priorities, requirement, and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
announces priorities, a requirement, and definitions under the IAL
program. The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of the priorities,
requirement, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014
and later years. We take this action to ensure IAL projects are
supported, at a minimum, by evidence of strong theory, and to focus
Federal financial assistance on projects that serve rural local
educational agencies (LEAs).
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirement, and definitions
are effective July 17, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Moore Miller, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E235, Washington, DC 20202-
6200. Telephone: (202) 453-5621 or by email: david.miller@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 IAL program is to support
high-quality projects designed to develop and improve literacy skills
for children and students from birth through 12th grade within the
attendance boundaries of high-need LEAs and schools.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7243-7243b.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirement, and
definitions for this program in the Federal Register on February 28,
2014 (79 FR 11363). That notice contained background information and
our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, requirement, and
definitions.
There are differences between the proposed priorities, requirement,
and definitions and these final priorities, requirement, and
definitions as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes
section elsewhere in this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of
proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions, nine parties
submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirement, and
definitions.
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 priorities, requirement, and definitions since
publication of the notice of proposed priorities, requirement, and
definitions follows.
Priorities
Comment: One commenter recommended that we amend proposed priority
1 to require, as a minimum level of evidence, that projects be
supported by evidence of promise rather than strong theory. The
commenter explained that the strong theory level of evidence proposed
in priority 1 appears to set a lower standard of evidence than was used
in the previous competition, which required applicants to cite at least
one study in support of the proposed project that meets the definition
of ``scientifically valid research.'' The commenter also recommended
that the Department look for stronger standards of evidence for all
applicants.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the Department should
[[Page 34429]]
encourage the use of strong standards of evidence in general. Because
we found the term imprecise, we do not refer to ``scientifically based
research'' in the priority. While an applicant to this program would
now only need to provide evidence of strong theory in support of its
proposed project, we think that this approach prepares the applicant to
thoughtfully and successfully implement its project. Setting the
minimum requirement of evidence at the strong theory level also allows
for the most innovative project proposals because applicants are not
restricted by a higher standard of evidence that would require some
degree of replication of a previously executed approach.
Through selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, the Department can
encourage the applicant to design a project evaluation that may help
build on the level of evidence available for future projects. For
example, if a project that uses strong theory is successful, the
evaluation report that a grantee will prepare, as outlined in the
selection criteria, could serve as sufficient evidence of promise for
applicants to cite in support of future proposals. We take this
approach in order to empower applicants to propose innovative ideas
that, if successful, will broaden the base of available evidence in the
field.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that we identify each proposed
priority as absolute, competitive, or invitational.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's interest in learning the
type of priorities that will be assigned in upcoming competitions. It
is our practice, however, to specify the priority types for each
competition in the notice inviting applications, not in a notice of
proposed priorities or a notice of final priorities.
Changes: None.
Eligibility
Comment: One commenter recommended including as an eligible entity
a regional education service agency (RESA), as defined by the National
Center for Education Statistics. The commenter noted that in many
locations, these agencies act as intermediary agents between education
departments and high-need rural LEAs that may otherwise lack capacity
to apply for Federal grants.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation to include
RESAs and other intermediary agencies as eligible applicants for this
program; however, such entities generally already meet the definition
of LEA included in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
as amended (ESEA). Section 9101(26)(A) of the ESEA defines an ``LEA''
as an entity that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency
for its public elementary schools or secondary schools, and section
9101(26)(D) of the ESEA specifically includes educational service
agencies and consortia of those agencies under the term ``LEA.''
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended expanding the eligibility
requirement to include high-need populations that are not served by
high-need LEAs. One noted that some preschool sites served by national
not-for-profit organizations (NNPs) may not fall within the attendance
boundaries of a high-need LEA, yet may still be serving high-need
children. The other commenter recommended including low-performing and
unaccredited districts as eligible entities, and also expanding the
target population to include students of families with incomes below
the poverty line, but who attend schools in LEAs that do not meet the
threshold of 25 percent of students from families with incomes below
the poverty line.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' recommendations to
consider expanding eligibility and the target population served.
However, the Department must focus its limited resources on the areas
of highest need. The eligibility requirement we have established is
designed to ensure that IAL funds will reach those communities most in
need.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we provide additional
guidance regarding acceptable Census Bureau data sets for determining
high-need LEAs, noting that the Census Bureau's Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data set does not include children from birth
through age four in its school district poverty estimates. The
commenter also noted that the Census Bureau's American Community Survey
(ACS) data set includes family poverty information for students birth
through age four.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation for
clarification concerning the acceptable Census Bureau data set for
determining target population eligibility. Although we recognize that
the SAIPE for school districts lacks specific information for children
under age five, at this time SAIPE are the most satisfactory data
available from the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of this program.
While we agree that poverty data for birth through age four would
be useful for determining eligibility for this program, the Census
Bureau's model-based SAIPE data provide single-year estimates for
students aged 5-17 that are more reflective of current conditions than
are the multi-year survey estimates provided by ACS data. That is,
SAIPE methodology combines ACS estimates with other data sources to
provide more timely, precise, and stable estimates than the five-year
ACS estimates alone. Significantly, SAIPE data incorporate ``grade
relevance,'' whereas ACS estimates do not. For areas with small
populations, SAIPE data contain less uncertainty and have lower error
variance than ACS estimates. SAIPE data therefore provide more accurate
representations of student poverty information than ACS data.
A list of high-need LEAs, by State, that are eligible for IAL
funding in FY 2014 will be available at the program Web site (https://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovapproaches-literacy/) when this
notice and the notice inviting applications are published.
Although we do not support using a different source of data for
determining eligibility under this program, we do believe a
modification to the definition of ``high-need LEA'' is appropriate. In
order to ensure the definition of ``high-need LEA'' is consistent with
the SAIPE data used to determine eligibility, we believe that we should
change the reference from ``geographic area'' to ``school attendance
area'' and adjust the age range from 0-17 to 5-17.
Also, we note that SAIPE are data used under section 1124(c)(3) of
Title I of the ESEA for the purpose of making allocations and that not
all LEAs are listed on the Census Bureau's lists. Therefore, we also
clarify that States determine eligibility status for LEAs that are not
listed with SAIPE data (e.g., charter school LEAs, State-administered
schools, and regional service agencies), and we provide information
about how States may verify the elegibility of such LEAs.
Changes: We have revised the definition of a ``high-need LEA.''
Under the revised definition, a ``high-need LEA'' is one in which at
least 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the ``school attendance
area'' of the LEA (rather than ``geographic area'') are from families
with incomes below the poverty line based on the U.S. Census Bureau's
Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for school districts for the
most recent income year (Census list). In addition, we added language
to the definition of a ``high-need LEA''
[[Page 34430]]
addressing how to determine if an LEA that is not on the Census list,
such as a charter school LEA, is a ``high-need LEA.'' Such an LEA is
considered a ``high-need LEA'' if the State educational agency (SEA)
determines, consistent with the manner in which the SEA determines an
LEA's eligibility for Title I allocations, that 25 percent of the
students aged 5-17 in the LEA are from families with incomes below the
poverty line.
Also, based on the revised definition of ``high-need LEA,'' we have
made a corresponding technical change to Proposed Priority 1 to delete
the phrase ``within attendance boundaries'' because the revised
definition of ``high-need LEA'' now contemplates LEAs (such as charter
school LEAs) that may draw students from beyond attendance boundaries.
Reporting
Comment: One commenter recommended broadening the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) measures to include
reporting on children birth through 12th grade, noting that the current
measures exclude reporting for children younger than age four, students
who are in kindergarten, and students in grades four and five.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation to broaden
GPRA reporting measures for this program. However, we intend the GPRA
measures for this program to provide an overview of program performance
rather than to assess performance at the level of each age or grade-
level served. Given the variety of projects possible under this
program, we believe that applicants are best equipped to develop
detailed performance measures that address the goals and objectives
unique to individual projects. We note that although GPRA reporting is
not required for projects to which GPRA reporting measures do not
apply, the Department will be able to collect data on progress for
children younger than age four, students in kindergarten, and students
in grades four and five from project-specific performance measures
developed as part of the grantees' local evaluation design.
Changes: None.
General
Comment: One commenter recommended that the onus to coordinate with
school libraries should be placed on LEAs and NNPs, rather than
requiring school libraries to coordinate with LEAs and NNPs. The
commenter indicated that this change would ensure better consistency
with the guiding language from S. Rep. 113-17 and the Federal
grantmaking process.
Discussion: We agree that placing the onus on LEAs and NNPs, rather
than on school libraries, to coordinate resources in developing IAL
proposals will ensure better consistency with the cited report language
and the Federal grantmaking process.
Changes: We have revised the eligibility requirement by adding
language to indicate that LEAs and NNPs must coordinate with school
libraries in developing project proposals.
Comment: One commenter recommended that current IAL grantees who
apply for IAL funds in future competitions should be permitted to
continue serving the same populations.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation. However,
proposing to serve the same populations that were served in a previous
award is already allowable and does not disqualify an applicant from
receiving funds in a new award, provided the applicant meets the
eligibility requirements of the program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that funding be directed toward
initiatives that include cross-sector literacy and parental engagement
programs, as well as those operating outside of traditional education
settings, including within the healthcare infrastructure.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation that we
direct funding toward cross-sector and non-traditional settings;
however, the types of projects the commenter described are already
possible under this program because there are no limitations on the
locations at which services can be provided or the partners a grantee
may choose. Additionally, we do not want to specify in this manner the
types of projects that an applicant may propose, as we wish to maximize
flexibility for applicants seeking to develop innovative project
proposals.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
Final Priority 1--High-Quality Plan for Innovative Approaches to
Literacy That Include Book Distribution, Childhood Literacy Activities,
or Both, and That Is Supported, at a Minimum, by Evidence of Strong
Theory (as Defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c))
To meet this priority, applicants must submit a plan that is
supported by evidence of strong theory, including a rationale for the
proposed process, product, strategy, or practice and a corresponding
logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
The applicant must submit a plan with the following information:
(a) A description of the proposed book distribution, childhood
literacy activities, or both, that are designed to improve the literacy
skills of children and students by one or more of the following--
(1) Promoting early literacy and preparing young children to read;
(2) developing and improving students' reading ability;
(3) motivating older children to read; and
(4) teaching children and students to read.
(b) the age or grade spans of children and students from birth
through 12th grade to be served.
(c) a detailed description of the key goals, the activities to be
undertaken, the rationale for those activities, the timeline, the
parties responsible for implementing the activities, and the
credibility of the plan (as judged, in part, by the information
submitted as evidence of strong theory); and
(d)(i) a description of how the proposed project is supported by
strong theory; and
(ii) the corresponding logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
Final Priority 2--Serving Rural LEAs
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project designed
to provide high-quality literacy programming, or distribute books, or
both, to students served by a rural LEA (as defined in this notice).
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
[[Page 34431]]
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirement
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following requirement for this program. We may apply
this requirement in any year in which this program is in effect.
Eligibility: To be considered for an award under this competition,
an applicant must:
(a) Be one of the following:
(1) A high-need LEA (as defined in this notice);
(2) An NNP (as defined in this notice) that serves children and
students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need
LEAs;
(3) A consortium of NNPs that serves children and students within
the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs;
(4) A consortium of high-need LEAs; or
(5) A consortium of one or more high-need LEAs and one or more NNPs
that serve children and students within the attendance boundaries of
one or more high-need LEAs.
(b) Coordinate with school libraries in developing project
proposals.
Final Definitions
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following definitions for this program. We may apply
one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is
in effect:
College- and career-ready standards means content standards for
kindergarten through 12th grade that build towards college and career
readiness by the time of high school graduation. A State's college- and
career-ready standards must be either (1) standards that are common to
a significant number of States; or (2) standards that are approved by a
State network of institutions of higher education, which must certify
that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work
at the postsecondary level.
Comprehensive statewide literacy plan means a plan (which may be a
component or modification of the plan submitted under the Striving
Readers Comprehensive Literacy formula grant program, CFDA 84.371B)
that addresses the literacy and language needs of children from birth
through 12th grade, including English learners and students with
disabilities; aligns literacy policies, resources, and practices;
contains clear instructional goals; and sets high expectations for all
students and student subgroups.
High-need local educational agency (High-need LEA) means--
(i) Except for LEAs referenced in paragraph (ii), an LEA in which
at least 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the school attendance
area of the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line,
based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates for school districts for the most recent income year
(Census list).
(ii) For an LEA that is not included on the Census list, such as a
charter school LEA, an LEA for which the State educational agency (SEA)
determines, consistent with the manner described under section 1124(c)
of the ESEA in which the SEA determines an LEA's eligibility for Title
I allocations, that 25 percent of the students aged 5-17 in the LEA are
from families with incomes below the poverty line.
National not-for-profit (NNP) organization means an agency,
organization, or institution owned and operated by one or more
corporations or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and
cannot lawfully benefit, any private shareholder or entity. In
addition, it means, for the purposes of this program, an organization
of national scope that is supported by staff or affiliates at the State
and local levels, who may include volunteers, and that has a
demonstrated history of effectively developing and implementing
literacy activities.
Note: A local affiliate of an NNP does not meet the definition
of NNP. Only a national agency, organization, or institution is
eligible to apply as an NNP.
Rural local educational agency (Rural LEA) means an LEA that is
eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement program (SRSA) or the
Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI,
Part B of the ESEA at the time of application.
Universal design for learning (UDL) means a scientifically valid
framework for guiding educational practice that (i) provides
flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students
respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students
are engaged; and (ii) reduces barriers in instruction, provides
appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains
high achievement expectations for all students, including students with
disabilities and students who are English learners.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirement,
and definitions, 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
[[Page 34432]]
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 these final priorities, requirement, and definitions
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 also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible 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: June 11, 2014.
Deborah Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2014-14047 Filed 6-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
