Direct Grant Programs and Definitions That Apply to Department Regulations, 2606-2609 [2015-00463]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2606
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
deviation, call or email Eric A.
Washburn, Bridge Administrator,
Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone
314–269–2378, email Eric.Washburn@
uscg.mil. If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Cheryl F.
Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Canadian Pacific Railroad requested a
temporary deviation for the Sabula
Railroad Drawbridge, across the Upper
Mississippi River, mile 535.0, at Sabula,
Iowa to open on signal if at least 24
hours advance notice is given for 51
days from 4 p.m., January 9, 2015, to 9
a.m., March 1, 2015 for scheduled
maintenance on the bridge. The Sabula
Railroad Drawbridge currently operates
in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which
states the general requirement that
drawbridge shall open on signal.
There are no alternate routes for
vessels transiting this section of the
Upper Mississippi River.
Winter conditions on the Upper
Mississippi River coupled with the
closure of Army Corps of Engineer’s
Lock No. 12 (Mile 556.7 UMR) and Lock
No. 13 (Mile 522.5 UMR) from 7:30 a.m.
December 15, 2015 until 11 a.m., March
4, 2015 will preclude any significant
navigation demands for the drawspan
opening.
The Sabula Railroad Drawbridge, in
the closed-to-navigation position,
provides a vertical clearance of 18.1 feet
above normal pool. Navigation on the
waterway consists primarily of
commercial tows and recreational
watercraft and will not be significantly
impacted. This temporary deviation has
been coordinated with waterway users.
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: January 9, 2015.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2015–00712 Filed 1–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
RIN 1855–AA10
[Docket ID ED–2014–OII–0116]
Direct Grant Programs and Definitions
That Apply to Department Regulations
Department of Education.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:43 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
Final regulations.
On August 13, 2013, the
Department of Education (the
Department) published final regulations
in the Federal Register to amend the
Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).
On October 22, 2014, the Department
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking to make additional
amendments to EDGAR. In this
document, the Department amends
EDGAR to add a definition of ‘‘What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence
Standards’’ (WWC Evidence Standards)
in our regulations to standardize
references to this term. In addition, the
Department amends the definition of
‘‘large sample’’ in our regulation. We
also make technical edits to our
regulations to improve the consistency
and clarity of the regulations. Finally,
we redesignate a section of our
regulations and include in that
redesignated section an additional
provision that allows the Secretary to
give special consideration to projects
supported by evidence of promise.
DATES: These regulations are effective
February 19, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Allison Moss, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 4W319, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 205–7726 or by email:
allison.moss@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUMMARY:
In this
document, we amend EDGAR to
standardize a term and improve the
consistency and clarity of our
regulations.
Summary of the Major Provisions of
This Regulatory Action: The Department
revises EDGAR to include a definition
for ‘‘What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards,’’ provide the
Secretary the flexibility to establish a
separate competition for or award
competitive preference to discretionary
grant applications supported by
evidence of promise, and revise certain
definitions to improve clarity.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
References to the WWC Handbook
34 CFR Parts 75 and 77
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department adds a definition of
‘‘What Works Clearinghouse Evidence
Standards’’ to 34 CFR part 77. This
definition incorporates the most recent
version of the What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC) Procedures and
Standards Handbook (WWC Handbook),
Version 3.0, which was made public in
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
March 2014. Instead of continuing to
separately cite the WWC Handbook in
various provisions of parts 75 and 77,
we add, to part 77, a single definition
of the WWC Evidence Standards that
incorporates the current version of the
WWC Handbook, and then include that
defined term, as applicable, throughout
parts 75 and 77.
The WWC Handbook, first published
in 2008, documents the systematic
review process and the standards by
which the WWC reviews studies.
Version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook
significantly expands the examples used
to illustrate how the WWC Evidence
Standards are applied in various
contexts. Although previous versions of
the WWC Handbook focused on only
one WWC product—the intervention
report—Version 3.0 includes
information on several additional WWC
products, including practice guides,
single-study reviews, and quick reviews.
By adding a definition of ‘‘WWC
Evidence Standards’’ and updating the
applicable references throughout 34
CFR parts 75 and 77 to incorporate the
most recent version of the WWC
Handbook, the Department will provide
more effective guidance to applicants
and grantees as they design and
implement rigorous evaluations of their
projects.
Special Consideration for Discretionary
Grant Applications Demonstrating
‘‘Evidence of Promise’’
These final regulations amend
§ 75.266 and redesignate it as § 75.226.
Previously, this section provided that
the Secretary may give special
consideration, through establishing a
separate competition or awarding
competitive preference, to discretionary
grant applications supported by strong
evidence of effectiveness or moderate
evidence of effectiveness. In our
experience using evidence in
discretionary grant competitions, we
have learned it is beneficial to also
include in 34 CFR 75.266 (which we
have redesignated as 34 CFR 75.226) a
provision for giving special
consideration to applications supported
by evidence of promise, which is a less
rigorous standard, because evidence of
effectiveness in the education field
continues to develop. By including
evidence of promise in newly
redesignated 34 CFR 75.226, we allow
more flexibility to discretionary grant
programs oriented towards supporting
evidence-based projects.
Definition of ‘‘Evidence of Promise’’
We amend the definition of ‘‘evidence
of promise’’ to replace the reference to
‘‘quasi-experimental study’’ with
E:\FR\FM\20JAR1.SGM
20JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘quasi-experimental design study,’’ to
clarify that the term used in the
definition of ‘‘evidence of promise’’ is
‘‘quasi-experimental design study,’’
which is defined later in 34 CFR 77.1(c).
We also change the paragraph
designations in this definition for
internal consistency. We make these
changes in order to align the definition
of ‘‘evidence of promise’’ so it is
consistent with the other defined terms
to which it makes reference and to
ensure that applicants and grantees
receive consistent and clear information
when referencing that definition.
Definition of ‘‘Large Sample’’
The Department modifies the
definition of ‘‘large sample’’ in 34 CFR
part 77 to remove the requirement that
analysis units be randomly assigned to
treatment or control groups. In
implementing our discretionary grant
programs, we discovered a discrepancy
between the existing definition,
specifically its references to random
assignment of students, teachers,
classrooms, schools, or other single
analysis units to treatment or control
groups, and the definition of ‘‘moderate
evidence of effectiveness’’ in 34 CFR
77.1. Under the definition of ‘‘moderate
evidence of effectiveness,’’ a quasiexperimental design study (as defined
in 34 CFR 77.1) that includes a large
sample could meet the standard, but
many such studies do not randomly
assign units of analysis to treatment or
control groups. We revise the definition
of ‘‘large sample’’ to eliminate the
random assignment of analysis units
into treatment or control groups as a
mandatory element. Therefore, for
instance, a quasi-experimental design
study with a sample of 350 or more
students (or other single analysis units),
or 50 or more groups (such as
classrooms or schools) that contains 10
or more students, could meet the
definition of ‘‘moderate evidence of
effectiveness’’ in 34 CFR 77.1.
There are no differences between the
NPRM and these final regulations.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the NPRM, we did not
receive any comments on the proposed
regulations.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:43 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 these
regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2607
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 regulations
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 these final
regulations are consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, or 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These regulations do not contain any
information collection requirements.
Intergovernmental Review
These regulations affect direct grant
programs of the Department, some of
which 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.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for these programs.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the NPRM we requested comments
on whether the proposed regulations
would require transmission of
information that any other agency or
authority of the United States gathers or
makes available.
Based on the response to the NPRM
and on our review, we have determined
that these final regulations do not
require transmission of information that
any other agency or authority of the
United States gathers or makes
available.
E:\FR\FM\20JAR1.SGM
20JAR1
2608
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 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. (Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance Number does not
apply.)
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 75
Accounting, Copyright, Education,
Grant programs—education, Inventions
and patents, Private schools, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
34 CFR Part 77
Education, Grant programs—
education.
Dated: January 9, 2015.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Secretary amends parts 75
and 77 of title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 75—DIRECT GRANT
PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for part 75
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474,
unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 75.210 is amended by
revising paragraphs (h)(2)(viii) and (ix),
and removing footnotes 1 and 2, to read
as follows.
produce evidence about the project’s
effectiveness that would meet the What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence
Standards without reservations.
(ix) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will, if well-implemented,
produce evidence about the project’s
effectiveness that would meet the What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence
Standards with reservations.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 75.266 is redesignated as
§ 75.226 and newly redesignated
§ 75.226 is revised to read as follows:
■
75.226 What procedures does the
Secretary use if the Secretary decides to
give special consideration to applications
supported by strong evidence of
effectiveness, moderate evidence of
effectiveness, or evidence of promise?
*
(a) As used in this section, ‘‘strong
evidence of effectiveness’’ is defined in
34 CFR 77.1(c);
(b) As used in this section, ‘‘moderate
evidence of effectiveness’’ is defined in
34 CFR 77.1(c);
(c) As used in this section, ‘‘evidence
of promise’’ is defined in 34 CFR
77.1(c); and
(d) If the Secretary determines that
special consideration of applications
supported by strong evidence of
effectiveness, moderate evidence of
effectiveness, or evidence of promise is
appropriate, the Secretary may establish
a separate competition under the
procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), or
provide competitive preference under
the procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2),
for applications supported by:
(1) Evidence of effectiveness that
meets the conditions set out in
paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘‘strong
evidence of effectiveness’’ in 34 CFR
77.1(c);
(2) Evidence of effectiveness that
meets the conditions set out in either
paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of
‘‘strong evidence of effectiveness’’ in 34
CFR 77.1(c);
(3) Evidence of effectiveness that
meets the conditions set out in the
definition of ‘‘moderate evidence of
effectiveness;’’ or
(4) Evidence of effectiveness that
meets the conditions set out in the
definition of ‘‘evidence of promise.’’
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
§ 75.210
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will, if well-implemented,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:43 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
4. The authority citation for part 77
continues to read as follows:
■
General selection criteria.
*
PART 77—DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY
TO DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474,
unless otherwise noted.
5. In § 77.1 paragraph (c) is amended
by:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
A. Revising the definitions of
Evidence of promise, Large sample,
Moderate evidence of effectiveness,
Quasi-experimental design study,
Randomized controlled trial, and Strong
evidence of effectiveness.
■ B. Adding, in alphabetical order, the
definition of What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards.
■ C. Removing footnotes 1 through 8.
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 77.1 Definitions that apply to all
Department programs.
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
Evidence of promise means there is
empirical evidence to support the
theoretical linkage(s) between at least
one critical component and at least one
relevant outcome presented in the logic
model for the proposed process,
product, strategy, or practice.
Specifically, evidence of promise means
the conditions in both paragraphs (i)
and (ii) of this definition are met:
(i) There is at least one study that is
a—
(A) Correlational study with statistical
controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental design study
that meets the What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial that
meets the What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards with or without
reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph
(i) of this definition found a statistically
significant or substantively important
(defined as a difference of 0.25 standard
deviations or larger) favorable
association between at least one critical
component and one relevant outcome
presented in the logic model for the
proposed process, product, strategy, or
practice.
*
*
*
*
*
Large sample means an analytic
sample of 350 or more students (or other
single analysis units), or 50 or more
groups (such as classrooms or schools)
that contain 10 or more students (or
other single analysis units).
*
*
*
*
*
Moderate evidence of effectiveness
means one of the following conditions
is met:
(i) There is at least one study of the
effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed that
meets the What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards without
reservations, found a statistically
significant favorable impact on a
E:\FR\FM\20JAR1.SGM
20JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
relevant outcome (with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable
impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the study or in other
studies of the intervention reviewed by
and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse), and includes a sample
that overlaps with the populations or
settings proposed to receive the process,
product, strategy, or practice.
(ii) There is at least one study of the
effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed that
meets the What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards with reservations,
found a statistically significant favorable
impact on a relevant outcome (with no
statistically significant and overriding
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for
relevant populations in the study or in
other studies of the intervention
reviewed by and reported on by the
What Works Clearinghouse), includes a
sample that overlaps with the
populations or settings proposed to
receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice, and includes a large sample
and a multi-site sample.
Note: Multiple studies can cumulatively
meet the large and multi-site sample
requirements as long as each study meets the
other requirements in this paragraph.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
Quasi-experimental design study
means a study using a design that
attempts to approximate an
experimental design by identifying a
comparison group that is similar to the
treatment group in important respects.
These studies, depending on design and
implementation, can meet What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations (but not What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards
without reservations).
*
*
*
*
*
Randomized controlled trial means a
study that employs random assignment
of, for example, students, teachers,
classrooms, schools, or districts to
receive the intervention being evaluated
(the treatment group) or not to receive
the intervention (the control group). The
estimated effectiveness of the
intervention is the difference between
the average outcomes for the treatment
group and for the control group. These
studies, depending on design and
implementation, can meet What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards
without reservations.
*
*
*
*
*
Strong evidence of effectiveness
means one of the following conditions
is met:
(i) There is at least one study of the
effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:43 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
meets the What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards without
reservations, found a statistically
significant favorable impact on a
relevant outcome (with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable
impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the study or in other
studies of the intervention reviewed by
and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse), includes a sample that
overlaps with the populations and
settings proposed to receive the process,
product, strategy, or practice, and
includes a large sample and a multi-site
sample.
Note: Multiple studies can cumulatively
meet the large and multi-site sample
requirements as long as each study meets the
other requirements in this paragraph.
(ii) There are at least two studies of
the effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed,
each of which: Meets the What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations, found a statistically
significant favorable impact on a
relevant outcome (with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable
impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the studies or in other
studies of the intervention reviewed by
and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse), includes a sample that
overlaps with the populations and
settings proposed to receive the process,
product, strategy, or practice, and
includes a large sample and a multi-site
sample.
*
*
*
*
*
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence
Standards means the standards set forth
in the What Works Clearinghouse
Procedures and Standards Handbook
(Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be
found at the following link: https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–00463 Filed 1–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0781; FRL–9920–52–
Region 9]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, South Coast Air
Quality Management District and
Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
2609
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the South
Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) and the Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions respectively concern volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions
from petroleum refinery coking
operations, and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
primary emissions from stationary
combustion sources. We are approving
local rules that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on March
23, 2015 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
February 19, 2015. If we receive such
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that this direct final
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2014–0781, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments 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
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send email
directly to EPA, your email address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the public comment. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, 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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20JAR1.SGM
20JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2606-2609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00463]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 75 and 77
RIN 1855-AA10
[Docket ID ED-2014-OII-0116]
Direct Grant Programs and Definitions That Apply to Department
Regulations
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 13, 2013, the Department of Education (the
Department) published final regulations in the Federal Register to
amend the Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR). On October 22, 2014, the Department published a notice of
proposed rulemaking to make additional amendments to EDGAR. In this
document, the Department amends EDGAR to add a definition of ``What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards'' (WWC Evidence Standards) in
our regulations to standardize references to this term. In addition,
the Department amends the definition of ``large sample'' in our
regulation. We also make technical edits to our regulations to improve
the consistency and clarity of the regulations. Finally, we redesignate
a section of our regulations and include in that redesignated section
an additional provision that allows the Secretary to give special
consideration to projects supported by evidence of promise.
DATES: These regulations are effective February 19, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Moss, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W319, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 205-7726 or by email: allison.moss@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this document, we amend EDGAR to
standardize a term and improve the consistency and clarity of our
regulations.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: The
Department revises EDGAR to include a definition for ``What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards,'' provide the Secretary the
flexibility to establish a separate competition for or award
competitive preference to discretionary grant applications supported by
evidence of promise, and revise certain definitions to improve clarity.
References to the WWC Handbook
The Department adds a definition of ``What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards'' to 34 CFR part 77. This definition incorporates
the most recent version of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)
Procedures and Standards Handbook (WWC Handbook), Version 3.0, which
was made public in March 2014. Instead of continuing to separately cite
the WWC Handbook in various provisions of parts 75 and 77, we add, to
part 77, a single definition of the WWC Evidence Standards that
incorporates the current version of the WWC Handbook, and then include
that defined term, as applicable, throughout parts 75 and 77.
The WWC Handbook, first published in 2008, documents the systematic
review process and the standards by which the WWC reviews studies.
Version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook significantly expands the examples used
to illustrate how the WWC Evidence Standards are applied in various
contexts. Although previous versions of the WWC Handbook focused on
only one WWC product--the intervention report--Version 3.0 includes
information on several additional WWC products, including practice
guides, single-study reviews, and quick reviews.
By adding a definition of ``WWC Evidence Standards'' and updating
the applicable references throughout 34 CFR parts 75 and 77 to
incorporate the most recent version of the WWC Handbook, the Department
will provide more effective guidance to applicants and grantees as they
design and implement rigorous evaluations of their projects.
Special Consideration for Discretionary Grant Applications
Demonstrating ``Evidence of Promise''
These final regulations amend Sec. 75.266 and redesignate it as
Sec. 75.226. Previously, this section provided that the Secretary may
give special consideration, through establishing a separate competition
or awarding competitive preference, to discretionary grant applications
supported by strong evidence of effectiveness or moderate evidence of
effectiveness. In our experience using evidence in discretionary grant
competitions, we have learned it is beneficial to also include in 34
CFR 75.266 (which we have redesignated as 34 CFR 75.226) a provision
for giving special consideration to applications supported by evidence
of promise, which is a less rigorous standard, because evidence of
effectiveness in the education field continues to develop. By including
evidence of promise in newly redesignated 34 CFR 75.226, we allow more
flexibility to discretionary grant programs oriented towards supporting
evidence-based projects.
Definition of ``Evidence of Promise''
We amend the definition of ``evidence of promise'' to replace the
reference to ``quasi-experimental study'' with
[[Page 2607]]
``quasi-experimental design study,'' to clarify that the term used in
the definition of ``evidence of promise'' is ``quasi-experimental
design study,'' which is defined later in 34 CFR 77.1(c). We also
change the paragraph designations in this definition for internal
consistency. We make these changes in order to align the definition of
``evidence of promise'' so it is consistent with the other defined
terms to which it makes reference and to ensure that applicants and
grantees receive consistent and clear information when referencing that
definition.
Definition of ``Large Sample''
The Department modifies the definition of ``large sample'' in 34
CFR part 77 to remove the requirement that analysis units be randomly
assigned to treatment or control groups. In implementing our
discretionary grant programs, we discovered a discrepancy between the
existing definition, specifically its references to random assignment
of students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or other single analysis
units to treatment or control groups, and the definition of ``moderate
evidence of effectiveness'' in 34 CFR 77.1. Under the definition of
``moderate evidence of effectiveness,'' a quasi-experimental design
study (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) that includes a large sample could
meet the standard, but many such studies do not randomly assign units
of analysis to treatment or control groups. We revise the definition of
``large sample'' to eliminate the random assignment of analysis units
into treatment or control groups as a mandatory element. Therefore, for
instance, a quasi-experimental design study with a sample of 350 or
more students (or other single analysis units), or 50 or more groups
(such as classrooms or schools) that contains 10 or more students,
could meet the definition of ``moderate evidence of effectiveness'' in
34 CFR 77.1.
There are no differences between the NPRM and these final
regulations.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPRM, we did
not receive any comments on the proposed regulations.
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 these regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these final regulations 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 these final regulations are consistent with
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, or 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These regulations do not contain any information collection
requirements.
Intergovernmental Review
These regulations affect direct grant programs of the Department,
some of which 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.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for these programs.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the NPRM we requested comments on whether the proposed
regulations would require transmission of information that any other
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Based on the response to the NPRM and on our review, we have
determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of
information that any other agency or authority of the United States
gathers or makes available.
[[Page 2608]]
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 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. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does
not apply.)
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 75
Accounting, Copyright, Education, Grant programs--education,
Inventions and patents, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
34 CFR Part 77
Education, Grant programs--education.
Dated: January 9, 2015.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends
parts 75 and 77 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 75--DIRECT GRANT PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 75.210 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(2)(viii) and
(ix), and removing footnotes 1 and 2, to read as follows.
Sec. 75.210 General selection criteria.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well-
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that
would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without
reservations.
(ix) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well-
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that
would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 75.266 is redesignated as Sec. 75.226 and newly
redesignated Sec. 75.226 is revised to read as follows:
75.226 What procedures does the Secretary use if the Secretary
decides to give special consideration to applications supported by
strong evidence of effectiveness, moderate evidence of effectiveness,
or evidence of promise?
(a) As used in this section, ``strong evidence of effectiveness''
is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c);
(b) As used in this section, ``moderate evidence of effectiveness''
is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c);
(c) As used in this section, ``evidence of promise'' is defined in
34 CFR 77.1(c); and
(d) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of
applications supported by strong evidence of effectiveness, moderate
evidence of effectiveness, or evidence of promise is appropriate, the
Secretary may establish a separate competition under the procedures in
34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), or provide competitive preference under the
procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2), for applications supported by:
(1) Evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in
paragraph (a) of the definition of ``strong evidence of effectiveness''
in 34 CFR 77.1(c);
(2) Evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in
either paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of ``strong evidence of
effectiveness'' in 34 CFR 77.1(c);
(3) Evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in
the definition of ``moderate evidence of effectiveness;'' or
(4) Evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in
the definition of ``evidence of promise.''
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
PART 77--DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS
0
4. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
0
5. In Sec. 77.1 paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
A. Revising the definitions of Evidence of promise, Large sample,
Moderate evidence of effectiveness, Quasi-experimental design study,
Randomized controlled trial, and Strong evidence of effectiveness.
0
B. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition of What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.
0
C. Removing footnotes 1 through 8.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 77.1 Definitions that apply to all Department programs.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
* * * * *
Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support
the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and
at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the
proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. Specifically,
evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and
(ii) of this definition are met:
(i) There is at least one study that is a--
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection
bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found
a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a
difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association
between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome
presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product,
strategy, or practice.
* * * * *
Large sample means an analytic sample of 350 or more students (or
other single analysis units), or 50 or more groups (such as classrooms
or schools) that contain 10 or more students (or other single analysis
units).
* * * * *
Moderate evidence of effectiveness means one of the following
conditions is met:
(i) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found
a statistically significant favorable impact on a
[[Page 2609]]
relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the
study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported
on by the What Works Clearinghouse), and includes a sample that
overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the
process, product, strategy, or practice.
(ii) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations, found a
statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with
no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that
outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of
the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or
settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample.
Note: Multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and
multi-site sample requirements as long as each study meets the other
requirements in this paragraph.
)* * * * *
Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that
attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important
respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can
meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but
not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations).
* * * * *
Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random
assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or
districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment
group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The
estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between
the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group.
These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.
* * * * *
Strong evidence of effectiveness means one of the following
conditions is met:
(i) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found
a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome
(with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts
on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other
studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What
Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the
populations and settings proposed to receive the process, product,
strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site
sample.
Note: Multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and
multi-site sample requirements as long as each study meets the other
requirements in this paragraph.
)(ii) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed, each of which:
Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a
relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the
studies or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and
reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that
overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive the
process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample
and a multi-site sample.
* * * * *
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set
forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook
(Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-00463 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
