Definitions and Selection Criteria That Apply to Direct Grant Programs, 18419-18421 [2018-08965]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 18419 TABLE 165.918—Continued [Datum NAD 1983] Event Location (13) Bay Harbor Yacht Club Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Petoskey, MI. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan and Bay Harbor Lake within the arc of a circle with an approximate 750-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°21′50″ N, 085°01′37″ W. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan and Petoskey Harbor, in the vicinity of Bay Front Park, within the arc of a circle with an approximate 1200-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 45°22′40″ N, 084°57′30″ W. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Charlevoix, in the vicinity of Veterans Park, within the arc of a circle with an approximate 1400-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 45°13′30″ N, 085°01′40″ W. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Huron within an approximate 1000foot radius of the fireworks launch site located near the end of Mason Street, South of State Avenue, at position 45°02′42″ N, 083°26′48″ W. All U.S. navigable waters of the West Arm of Grand Traverse Bay within the arc of a circle with an approximate 1200-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 44°46′12″ N, 085°37′06″ W. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Charlevoix, in the vicinity of Depot Beach, within the arc of a circle with an approximate 1200-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°19′08″ N, 085°14′18″ W. All U.S. navigable waters of Round Lake within the arc of a circle with an approximate 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45°19′03″ N, 085°15′18″ W. All U.S. navigable waters within the arc of a circle with an approximate 750-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 44°54′6.95″ N, 85°25′3.11″ W. All U.S. navigable waters within the arc of a circle with an approximate 750-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located near Harbor View Road in position 45°25′04.72″ N, 83°47′51.21″ W. (14) Petoskey Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Petoskey, MI. (15) Boyne City Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Boyne City, MI. (16) Alpena Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Alpena, MI. (17) Traverse City Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Traverse City, MI. (18) Charlevoix Venetian Festival Friday Night Fireworks; Charlevoix, MI. (19) Charlevoix Venetian Saturday Night Fireworks; Charlevoix, MI. (20) Elk Rapids Harbor Days Fireworks; Elk Rapids, MI. (21) Nautical City Fireworks; Rogers City. Dated: April 23, 2018. M.R. Broz, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie. omitted and removing an outdated definition. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Parts 75 and 77 RIN 1855–AA13 Definitions and Selection Criteria That Apply to Direct Grant Programs Department of Education. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES 13:07 Apr 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final Regulatory Changes On July 31, 2017, the Department of Education (Department) issued a new rule in order to better align the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) with the definition of ‘‘evidence-based’’ in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA). Through this document, we are adding a selection factor that was inadvertently VerDate Sep<11>2014 Effective date: These regulations are effective April 27, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202– 5900. Telephone: (202) 205–5231 or by email: kelly.terpak@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. DATES: [FR Doc. 2018–08840 Filed 4–26–18; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: Event date Background: On July 31, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a final rule (82 FR 35445) (2017 Rule) revising 34 CFR parts 75 and 77 to better align the regulations with the definition of ‘‘evidence-based’’ in the ESEA. In that rule, we inadvertently removed a selection factor and maintained an outdated definition. Therefore, the purpose of this document is to amend §§ 75.210(h) and 77.1(c) in order to correct those errors. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 On or around July 4th. On or around July 4th. On or around July 4th. On or around July 4th. On or around July 4th. This event historically occurs in late July. This event historically occurs in late July. This event historically occurs in early August. Early August. 34 CFR Part 75 Section 75.210 Criteria General Selection Current Regulations: Section 75.210(h) includes 13 factors under the ‘‘Quality of the Project Evaluation’’ selection criterion. Final Regulations and Reasons: We are reinserting the selection factor under the ‘‘Quality of the Project Evaluation’’ criterion (§ 75.210(h)) focused on the extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes. This factor was inadvertently omitted from § 77.210(h), and we are making this revision to add it back in. We believe this factor continues to be an important one to include in the menu of selection criteria and factors available for use in discretionary grant programs. As noted in the 2017 Rule, the final regulations do not change the way the Secretary uses selection criteria and factors. The Secretary will continue to use selection criteria that are consistent with the purpose of the program and permitted under the applicable statutes and regulations. E:\FR\FM\27APR1.SGM 27APR1 18420 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 34 CFR Part 77 Section 77.1 Definitions That Apply to All Department Programs Current Regulations: Section 77.1(c) establishes definitions that, unless a statute or regulation provides otherwise, apply to the regulations in title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations and can be used in Department grant competitions. Final Regulations and Reasons: We are removing the term ‘‘randomized controlled trial’’ from § 77.1(c). We are removing this definition because, as noted in the 2017 Rule, it was our intent to replace it with the term ‘‘experimental study,’’ to align with the definition of ‘‘evidence-based,’’ in section 8101(21), specifically with regard to ‘‘strong evidence.’’ In the new definition of ‘‘strong evidence,’’ we clarified the types of studies that can qualify as experimental studies— including, but not limited to, randomized controlled trials—as provided in the applicable What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Handbook. jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these regulations make technical changes only and do not establish substantive policy. The regulations are, therefore, exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). The APA also generally requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Again, because these final regulations are merely technical, there is good cause to make them effective on the day they are published. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Apr 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 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. Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2018, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order 13771 does not apply to ‘‘transfer rules’’ that cause only income transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those regarding discretionary grant programs. The final regulations pertain to the Department’s discretionary grant programs and, therefore, Executive Order 13771 is not applicable. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, 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, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. Potential Costs and Benefits Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action and have determined that these regulations would not impose additional costs. We believe any additional costs imposed by these final regulations will be negligible, primarily because they reflect technical changes that do not impose additional burden. Moreover, we believe any costs will be significantly outweighed by the potential benefits of making necessary clarifications and ensuring consistency among the Education Department General Administrative Regulations and section 8101(21) of ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The Secretary certifies that these regulations do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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. E:\FR\FM\27APR1.SGM 27APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations 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 Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. List of Subjects 34 CFR Part 77 Education, Grant programs— education, Incorporation by reference. Dated: April 24, 2018. Betsy DeVos, 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 adding paragraph (h)(2)(xiv) to read as follows: ■ General selection criteria. jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES * * * * * (h) * * * (2) * * * (xiv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes. * * * * * 13:07 Apr 26, 2018 Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted. § 77.1 [Amended] 4. Section 77.1(c) is amended by removing the definition of ‘‘randomized controlled trial.’’ ■ [FR Doc. 2018–08965 Filed 4–26–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 8 RIN 2900–AQ03 Eligibility for Supplemental ServiceDisabled Veterans’ Insurance ACTION: Accounting, Copyright, Education, Grant programs—education, Inventions and patents, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Youth organizations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 3. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows: ■ Department of Veterans Affairs. Final rule. AGENCY: 34 CFR Part 75 § 75.210 PART 77—DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS Jkt 244001 The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in this final rule, amends its regulations governing the ServiceDisabled Veterans’ Insurance (S–DVI) program in order to explain that a person who was granted S–DVI as of the date of death is not eligible for supplemental S–DVI because the insured’s total disability did not begin after the date of the insured’s application for insurance and while the insurance was in force under premiumpaying conditions. DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Weaver, Department of Veterans Affairs Insurance Center (310/290B), 5000 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) 842–2000, ext. 4263 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 23, 2017, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 39974). VA provided a 60-day comment period on the proposed rule, which ended on October 23, 2017. VA received comments from five individuals. The commenters stated that they believed the proposed rule would unnecessarily restrict eligibility for supplemental S– DVI; eliminate insurance coverage for veterans; and is contrary to the congressional intent of the supplemental S–DVI legislation. We address their contentions below. SUMMARY: A. Insurance Coverage One commenter stated that the rule would eliminate insurance coverage for PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18421 many veterans. The regulation does not eliminate insurance coverage for insured veterans or those eligible to be insured under supplemental S–DVI. Rather, the rule clarifies VA’s longstanding practice, which is dictated by 38 U.S.C. 1912(a) and 1922A(a), by explaining which veterans are ineligible for supplemental S–DVI consistent with the governing statutes. See Martin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 451 (2014). Therefore, VA will not make any changes based on this comment. B. Eligibility for Supplemental S–DVI Four commenters stated that the rule would restrict eligibility for supplemental S–DVI. Two of the commenters stated that the rule makes a blanket assessment that a mentally incompetent veteran is ineligible for supplemental S–DVI based on the assumption that the veteran would not have applied for the coverage. Another commenter stated that the rule discriminates against veterans who are incapable of applying for supplemental S–DVI prior to their date of death. The rule is not based upon any assumption nor does it discriminate against certain veterans. As VA explained in the proposed rule, under 38 U.S.C. 1922A(a), a S–DVI insured is not entitled to supplemental S–DVI unless the insured qualifies for waiver of premiums under 38 U.S.C. 1912(a), and a veteran granted insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922(b) cannot qualify for a waiver of premiums under § 1912(a) because the insured’s total disability does not begin after the date of the insured’s application for insurance and while the insurance is in force under premium-paying conditions. See 82 FR 39975. While section 1922(b) grants S– DVI posthumously, Congress did not include provisions in section 1922A to grant supplemental S–DVI to the survivors of veterans who were unable to apply for the insurance prior to death. See Martin, 26 Vet. App. at 458–59. VA will not make any changes based on these comments. Two commenters stated that VA should revise the rule to prevent abuses rather than to eliminate eligibility for Supplemental S–DVI for all veterans granted S–DVI under section 1922(b). Both commenters stated that the point of the Martin decision was to prevent abuse of the system. We see no reference in the court’s decision for prevention of abuse. Rather, the court’s holdings are based on the plain language of the statutes. See 26 Vet. App. 458–49. Any VA rule that is inconsistent with the statutes would be invalid. We therefore decline to make any changes to the rule on this basis. E:\FR\FM\27APR1.SGM 27APR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18419-18421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08965]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 75 and 77

RIN 1855-AA13


Definitions and Selection Criteria That Apply to Direct Grant 
Programs

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On July 31, 2017, the Department of Education (Department) 
issued a new rule in order to better align the Education Department 
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) with the definition of 
``evidence-based'' in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as 
amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA). Through this 
document, we are adding a selection factor that was inadvertently 
omitted and removing an outdated definition.

DATES: Effective date: These regulations are effective April 27, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202-
5900. Telephone: (202) 205-5231 or by email: [email protected].
    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:

Final Regulatory Changes

    Background: On July 31, 2017, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a final rule (82 FR 35445) (2017 Rule) revising 34 CFR 
parts 75 and 77 to better align the regulations with the definition of 
``evidence-based'' in the ESEA. In that rule, we inadvertently removed 
a selection factor and maintained an outdated definition. Therefore, 
the purpose of this document is to amend Sec. Sec.  75.210(h) and 
77.1(c) in order to correct those errors.

34 CFR Part 75

Section 75.210 General Selection Criteria
    Current Regulations: Section 75.210(h) includes 13 factors under 
the ``Quality of the Project Evaluation'' selection criterion.
    Final Regulations and Reasons: We are reinserting the selection 
factor under the ``Quality of the Project Evaluation'' criterion (Sec.  
75.210(h)) focused on the extent to which the methods of evaluation 
will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes. 
This factor was inadvertently omitted from Sec.  77.210(h), and we are 
making this revision to add it back in. We believe this factor 
continues to be an important one to include in the menu of selection 
criteria and factors available for use in discretionary grant programs. 
As noted in the 2017 Rule, the final regulations do not change the way 
the Secretary uses selection criteria and factors. The Secretary will 
continue to use selection criteria that are consistent with the purpose 
of the program and permitted under the applicable statutes and 
regulations.

[[Page 18420]]

34 CFR Part 77

Section 77.1 Definitions That Apply to All Department Programs
    Current Regulations: Section 77.1(c) establishes definitions that, 
unless a statute or regulation provides otherwise, apply to the 
regulations in title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations and can be 
used in Department grant competitions.
    Final Regulations and Reasons: We are removing the term 
``randomized controlled trial'' from Sec.  77.1(c). We are removing 
this definition because, as noted in the 2017 Rule, it was our intent 
to replace it with the term ``experimental study,'' to align with the 
definition of ``evidence-based,'' in section 8101(21), specifically 
with regard to ``strong evidence.'' In the new definition of ``strong 
evidence,'' we clarified the types of studies that can qualify as 
experimental studies--including, but not limited to, randomized 
controlled trials--as provided in the applicable What Works 
Clearinghouse (WWC) Handbook.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the 
Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to 
comment on proposed regulations. However, these regulations make 
technical changes only and do not establish substantive policy. The 
regulations are, therefore, exempt from notice and comment rulemaking 
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    The APA also generally requires that regulations be published at 
least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good 
cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Again, 
because these final regulations are merely technical, there is good 
cause to make them effective on the day they are published.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 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.
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the 
Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates 
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and 
that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2018, any new incremental costs 
associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the 
elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, 
Executive Order 13771 does not apply to ``transfer rules'' that cause 
only income transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such 
as those regarding discretionary grant programs. The final regulations 
pertain to the Department's discretionary grant programs and, 
therefore, Executive Order 13771 is not applicable.
    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 an analysis of anticipated costs 
and benefits, 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, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.

Potential Costs and Benefits

    Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs 
and benefits of this regulatory action and have determined that these 
regulations would not impose additional costs. We believe any 
additional costs imposed by these final regulations will be negligible, 
primarily because they reflect technical changes that do not impose 
additional burden. Moreover, we believe any costs will be significantly 
outweighed by the potential benefits of making necessary clarifications 
and ensuring consistency among the Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations and section 8101(21) of ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that these regulations do not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    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.

[[Page 18421]]

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations 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 Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe 
Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

List of Subjects

34 CFR Part 75

    Accounting, Copyright, Education, Grant programs--education, 
Inventions and patents, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Youth organizations.

34 CFR Part 77

    Education, Grant programs--education, Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: April 24, 2018.
Betsy DeVos,
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 adding paragraph (h)(2)(xiv) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.210   General selection criteria.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (xiv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.
* * * * *

PART 77--DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.


Sec.  77.1   [Amended]

0
4. Section 77.1(c) is amended by removing the definition of 
``randomized controlled trial.''

[FR Doc. 2018-08965 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P