Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 53819 

explanation of how the exemption 

applies to the records withheld, and the 

reasons for asserting it, if different from 

those described by the Assistant Legal 

Counsel, FOIA Programs, the District 

Director, or the District Director’s 

designee under § 1610.9. The decision 

on appeal shall indicate that the person 

making the request may, if dissatisfied 

with the decision, file a civil action in 

the United States District Court for the 

district in which the person resides or 

has his principal place of business, for 

the district where the records reside, or 

for the District of Columbia. 

(d) No personal appearance, oral 

argument or hearing will ordinarily be 

permitted in connection with an appeal 

to the Legal Counsel or the Assistant 

Legal Counsel, FOIA Programs. 

(e) On appeal, the Legal Counsel or 

designee, or the Assistant Legal 

Counsel, FOIA Programs, as 

appropriate, may reduce any fees 

previously assessed. 

(f) In the event that the Commission 

terminates its proceedings on a charge 

after the District Director or the District 

Director’s designee denies a request, in 

whole or in part, for the charge file but 

during consideration of the requester’s 

appeal from that denial, the request may 

be remanded for redetermination. The 

requester retains a right to appeal to the 

Assistant Legal Counsel, FOIA 

Programs, from the decision on remand. 

11. Revise § 1610.13 to read as 

follows: 

§ 1610.13 Maintenance of files. 

The Legal Counsel or designee, the 

Assistant Legal Counsel, FOIA 

Programs, and the District Directors or 

designees shall maintain files 

containing all material required to be 

retained by or furnished to them under 

this subpart. The material shall be filed 

by individual request. 

12. Amend § 1610.14 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1610.14 Waiver of user charges. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, the Legal Counsel or 

designee, the Assistant Legal Counsel, 

FOIA Programs, and the District 

Directors or designees shall assess fees 

where applicable in accordance with 

§ 1610.15 for search, review, and 

duplication of records requested. They 

shall also have authority to furnish 

documents without any charge or at a 

reduced charge if disclosure of the 

information is in the public interest 

because it is likely to contribute 

significantly to public understanding of 

the operations or activities of the 

government and is not primarily in the 

commercial interest of the requester. 

* * * * * 

13. Amend § 1610.15 by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 1610.15 Schedule of fees and method of 

payment for services rendered. 

* * * * * 

(g) A search fee will not be charged to 

requesters specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (a)(3) of this section, and a 

duplication fee will not be charged to 

requesters specified in paragraph (a)(2) 

of this section, if the Commission issues 

an untimely determination and the 

untimeliness is not due to unusual or 

exceptional circumstances. 

14. Amend § 1610.18 by revising the 

introductory text and adding paragraph 

(h) to read as follows: 

§ 1610.18 Information to be disclosed. 

The Commission will provide the 

following information to the public. 

This information will also be made 

available electronically: 

* * * * * 

(h) Underlying annual FOIA report 

data. 

15. Amend § 1610.19 by removing 

paragraph (b)(2), redesignating 

paragraph (b)(3) as paragraph (b)(2), and 

removing the word ‘‘working’’ wherever 

it appears in paragraphs (d) and (e) and 

add in its place the word ‘‘business.’’ 

16. Remove and reserve § 1610.20. 

§ 1610.20 [Removed and Reserved] 

17. Revise § 1610.21 to read as 

follows: 

§ 1610.21 Annual report. 

The Legal Counsel shall, on or before 

February 1, submit individual Freedom 

of Information Act reports for each 

principal agency FOIA component and 

one for the entire agency covering the 

preceding fiscal year to the Attorney 

General of the United States. The 

reports shall include those matters 

required by 5 U.S.C. 552(e), and shall be 

made available electronically on the 

agency Web site. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21495 Filed 8–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6570–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

[DOCKET ID ED–2012–OII–0013] 

RIN 1855–AA08 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Supporting Effective Educator 

Development 

[CFDA Number: 84.367D.] 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement proposes priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria under the Supporting Effective 

Educator Development (SEED) Grant 

program. We may use these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for competitions of the SEED 

Grant program for fiscal year (FY) 2012 

and later years. We intend for the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria to help national notfor-profit organizations to build 

evidence on how best to recruit, train, 

and support effective teachers and 

school leaders; recruit and prepare 

effective science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics teachers; 

and invest in efforts that enhance the 

teaching and school leadership 

professions. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before October 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only 

once. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the phrase ‘‘Supporting 

Effective Educator Development’’ at the 

top of your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘How To Use This Site.’’ A 

direct link to the docket page is also 

available at www.ed.gov/programs/ 

innovation/index.html. 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53820 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Lee S. Shulman, Knowledge and Teaching: 

Foundations of the New Reform, Harvard 

Educational Review, Vol. 57, No. 1 (February 1987), 

pages 1–22; Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, & 

Steven G. Rivkin. Teachers, Schools, and Academic 

Achievement (NBER Working Paper No. 6691) 

(1998), National Bureau of Economic Research, 

Retrieved April 25, 2012, from http://www.nber.org/ 

papers/w6691.pdf; Thomas J. Kane & Douglas O. 

Staiger, Gathering Feedback for Teaching: 

Combining High-Quality Observations with Student 

Surveys and Achievement Gains, Bill & Melinda 

Gates Foundation (January, 2012). 

2 Kyla L. Wahlstom, Karen Seashore-Louis, 

Kenneth Leithwood, & Stephen E. Anderson, 

Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to 

Improved Student Learning, Center for Applied 

Research and Educational Improvement, University 

of Minnesota, Ontario Institute for Studies in 

Education at the University of Toronto, sponsored 

by the Wallace Foundation (July, 2010). 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, address them to Office 

of Innovation and Improvement 

(Attention: Supporting Effective 

Educator Development Comments), U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., room 4C131, Washington, 

DC 20202. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy is to make all comments received 

from members of the public available for 

public viewing in their entirety on the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Wilson Telephone: (202) 453– 

6709 or by email: seed@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criterion that 

each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. Please let us know of 

any further ways we could reduce 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits while preserving the effective 

and efficient administration of the 

Department’s programs and activities. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person, in room 

4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, Monday through Friday of 

each week except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the 

SUMMARY section of this notice. 

Purpose of Program: The SEED Grant 

program provides funding for grants to 

national not-for-profit organizations for 

projects that support teacher or 

principal training or professional 

enhancement activities and are 

supported by at least moderate evidence 

of effectiveness (as defined in this 

notice). 

Program Authority: Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 

112–74, Title III, Division F). 

Proposed Priorities 

This notice contains seven proposed 

priorities. 

Background 

The Statutory Context 

The Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012, requires the 

Secretary to reserve up to 1.5 percent of 

the funds for the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act’s (ESEA) Title 

II, Part A programs for competitive 

awards to national not-for-profit 

organizations for teacher or principal 

training or professional enhancement 

activities. 

Overview of the SEED Grant program 

Reforming and improving schools 

with high concentrations of high-need 

students is a key priority for the 

Department. Strengthening teacher and 

principal leadership is an essential part 

of any strategy to make a difference in 

these schools. Research shows that 

teachers are a critical element in 

improving student learning.1

Additionally, there is compelling 

evidence that strong principals have 

positive, although indirect, effects on 

student learning.2 The Department is 

using the SEED Grant program as a 

mechanism to identify and support 

projects that will strengthen teaching 

and school leadership specifically for 

high-need schools. As proposed in this 

notice, applicants must demonstrate 

how they will build evidence on how 

best to recruit, prepare, and support 

effective teachers and principals. 

The following priorities focus on this 

goal. 

Proposed Priority 1: Teacher or 

Principal Recruitment, Selection, and 

Preparation 

Background 

This proposed priority would support 

projects that will recruit, select, and 

prepare teachers, principals, or both 

who are able to increase student 

achievement and student learning, 

particularly in high-need schools. 

Although we included a similar priority 

in our September 8, 2011, notice 

inviting applications (76 FR 55658– 

55664) (2012 SEED NIA), that priority 

focused only on teachers. The 

Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012, provides that 

projects may serve principals, teachers, 

or both and, therefore, we are modifying 

this priority accordingly. Additionally, 

we propose to include a more explicit 

focus on schools with high 

concentrations of high-need students (as 

defined in this notice) and to provide 

more direction on required project 

activities. 

Proposed Priority 1 

Under this proposed priority, the 

Secretary would fund projects that will 

create or expand practices and strategies 

that increase the number of highly 

effective teachers (as defined in this 

notice) or highly effective principals (as 

defined in this notice) by recruiting, 

selecting, and preparing talented 

individuals to work in schools with 

high concentrations of high-need 

students (as defined in this notice). 

Projects would include activities that 

focus on creating or expanding highperforming teacher preparation 

programs, principal preparation 

programs, or both. Activities may 

include but are not limited to expanding 

clinical experiences, re-designing and 

implementing program coursework to 

align with State standards and district 

requirements for their P–12 teachers, 

providing induction and other support 

for program participants in their 

classrooms and schools, and developing 

strategies for tracking the effect of 

program graduates on the achievement 

of their students or their schools. 

In addition, an applicant would need 

to propose a plan demonstrating a 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 53821 

rigorous, competitive selection process 

to determine which aspiring teachers or 

principals participate in the applicant’s 

proposed activities. 

Proposed Priority 2: Professional 

Development for Teachers of English 

Language Arts With a Specific Focus on 

Writing 

Background 

This proposed priority is based on 

Absolute Priority 2 published in the 

2012 SEED NIA. We propose changing 

the priority by requiring that the 

professional development be aligned 

with State standards. We also propose to 

require that the professional 

development align with district needs 

and include a rigorous evaluation of the 

effectiveness of teachers who participate 

in the professional development. 

Proposed Priority 2 

Under this proposed priority, the 

Secretary would fund projects designed 

to improve student literacy and writing 

skills by creating or expanding practices 

and strategies that increase the number 

of highly effective teachers (as defined 

in this notice) of English language arts 

by improving their knowledge, 

understanding, and teaching of English 

language arts, with a specific focus on 

teaching writing. Projects would focus 

on increasing student achievement (as 

defined in this notice) in English 

language arts by providing high-quality 

professional development to teachers in 

schools with high concentrations of 

high-need students (as defined in this 

notice). 

An applicant would be required to 

describe the need of the proposed 

districts to be served for teacher 

professional development in English 

language arts and demonstrate 

alignment of its proposed project with 

State standards. 

In addition, applicants would have to 

describe how they plan to measure the 

impact the professional development 

has on the effectiveness of teachers 

served by the project. Applicants would 

need to determine teacher effectiveness 

through a rigorous, transparent, and fair 

evaluation in which performance is 

differentiated using multiple measures 

of effectiveness and based in significant 

part on student growth (as defined in 

this notice). 

Proposed Priority 3: Advanced 

Certification and Advanced 

Credentialing 

Background 

This proposed priority would support 

projects that will develop or enhance 

systems to develop and recognize 

teachers, principals, or both who will 

serve as models, coaches, and mentors 

from whom other teachers, principals, 

or both can learn and strengthen their 

practices. We propose changing this 

priority from Absolute Priority 3 in the 

2012 SEED NIA by encouraging 

applicants to target services to teachers, 

principals, or both who are working or 

agree to work in schools with high 

concentrations of high-need students (as 

defined in this notice). We also propose 

adding requirements for the selection of 

participants and the evaluation of 

outcomes or effectiveness of 

participants. 

Proposed Priority 3 

Under this proposed priority, the 

Secretary would fund projects that will 

create or expand practices and strategies 

that increase the number of highly 

effective teachers (as defined in this 

notice), highly effective principals (as 

defined in this notice), or both, who 

work in schools with high 

concentrations of high-need students (as 

defined in this notice). 

Applicants would be required to focus 

their proposed projects on encouraging 

and supporting teachers, principals, or 

both, who seek a nationally recognized, 

standards-based advanced certificate or 

advanced credential through highquality professional enhancement 

projects designed to improve teaching 

and learning for teachers who would 

take on career ladder positions (as 

defined in this notice), principals, or 

both who would serve as models, 

mentors, and coaches for other teachers, 

principals, or both working in schools 

with high concentrations of high-need 

students (as defined in this notice). 

In addition, effectiveness of teachers 

or principals who receive advanced 

certification or credentialing would 

need to be determined through a 

rigorous, transparent, and fair 

evaluation in which performance is 

differentiated using multiple measures 

of effectiveness and based in significant 

part on student growth (as defined in 

this notice). 

Finally, an applicant would need to 

propose a plan demonstrating a 

rigorous, competitive selection process 

to determine which teachers or 

principals participate in the applicant’s 

proposed activities. 

Proposed Priority 4: Promoting Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education 

Background 

This proposed priority would support 

projects that will improve professional 

development for STEM teachers and 

increase the number of STEM teachers 

from traditionally underrepresented 

groups. Improving STEM education is 

critical in developing a globally 

competitive workforce. 

This priority was not used in the 2012 

SEED NIA. We propose adding this 

priority because it would respond to the 

high demand for highly effective STEM 

teachers, particularly in high-need 

schools. We also note that this proposed 

priority is based on the notice of final 

supplemental priorities and definitions 

for discretionary grant programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78486– 

78511), and corrected on May 12, 2011 

(76 FR 27637–27641) (Supplemental 

Priorities). However, in both subsections 

(a) and (b) of this proposed priority, we 

removed the term ‘‘other educators’’ 

because the appropriations language for 

the SEED Grant program allows projects 

that provide services only to teachers, 

principals, or both. 

Proposed Priority 4 

Under this proposed priority, the 

Secretary would fund projects that 

address one or both of the following 

priority areas: 

(a) Increasing the opportunities for 

high-quality preparation of, or 

professional development for, teachers 

of STEM subjects. 

(b) Increasing the number of 

individuals from groups traditionally 

underrepresented in STEM, including 

minorities, individuals with disabilities, 

and women, who are teachers of STEM 

subjects and have increased 

opportunities for high-quality 

preparation or professional 

development. 

In addition, applicants would have to 

describe how they plan to measure the 

impact the proposed project activities 

have on teacher effectiveness. 

Applicants would need to determine 

teacher effectiveness through a rigorous, 

transparent, and fair evaluation in 

which performance is differentiated 

using multiple measures of effectiveness 

and based in significant part on student 

growth (as defined in this notice). 

Proposed Priority 5: Professional 

Development for Teachers of Core 

Academic Subjects 

Background 

This proposed priority would support 

projects that will provide professional 

development to teachers of core 

academic subjects, including special 

education teachers, to help them 

continue to improve their pedagogy, 

increase their knowledge of core 

subjects, and become highly effective 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53822 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

teachers in schools with high 

concentrations of high-need students (as 

defined in this notice). We propose 

adding this priority to support the 

creation and expansion of high-quality 

professional development projects that 

strengthen instruction and raise student 

achievement across core academic 

subjects. The priority would require that 

the professional development be aligned 

with State standards. We also propose to 

include requirements for the selection of 

participants that align with district 

needs and for the evaluation of the 

effectiveness of participants. 

Proposed Priority 5 

Under this proposed priority, the 

Secretary would fund projects that will 

create or expand practices and strategies 

that increase the number of highly 

effective teachers (as defined in this 

notice) by providing professional 

development opportunities to teachers, 

including special education teachers, in 

schools with high concentrations of 

high-need students (as defined in this 

notice). Projects would focus on 

increasing student achievement (as 

defined in this notice) in core academic 

subjects by providing high-quality 

professional development to teachers. 

The academic subjects that may be 

addressed through professional 

development under this priority include 

foreign languages, civics and 

government, economics, arts, history, 

physical education, geography, 

environmental education, and financial 

literacy. 

Applicants would be required to 

describe the need of the proposed 

districts to be served for teacher 

professional development in the 

selected high-need core academic 

subjects and to demonstrate alignment 

of its proposed project with State 

standards. 

In addition, applicants would have to 

describe how they plan to measure the 

impact the professional development 

has on teacher effectiveness. Applicants 

would need to determine teacher 

effectiveness through a rigorous, 

transparent, and fair evaluation in 

which performance is differentiated 

using multiple measures of effectiveness 

and based in significant part on student 

growth (as defined in this notice). 

Proposed Priority 6: Improving 

Efficiency 

Background 

This proposed priority would support 

projects that identify cost-effective 

strategies to improve project outcomes. 

In order to meet this priority, applicants 

would be required to demonstrate how 

they will efficiently improve 

educational outcomes, including 

student achievement. We propose 

changing the language in this priority 

from the Competitive Preference Priority 

2 in the 2012 SEED NIA in order to 

emphasize the use of cost-effective 

strategies. 

Proposed Priority 6 

Under this proposed priority, the 

Secretary would fund projects that will 

identify strategies for providing costeffective, high-quality services at the 

State, regional, or local level by making 

better use of available resources. Such 

projects may include innovative and 

sustainable uses of technology, 

modification of school schedules and 

teacher compensation systems, use of 

open educational resources (as defined 

in this notice), or other strategies. 

Proposed Priority 7: Supporting 

Practices and Strategies for Which 

There Is Strong Evidence of 

Effectiveness 

Background 

This proposed priority would support 

projects that are supported by strong 

evidence. The Department firmly 

believes that the strongest available 

evidence should inform educational 

funding and policy decisions. Creating a 

larger pool of evidence-supported 

implementation sites will provide more 

opportunities to scale up projects that 

have a history of success and to improve 

educational outcomes for more students. 

We propose to leave this priority 

unchanged from the 2012 SEED NIA; 

however, we propose a slightly different 

definition of ‘‘strong evidence of 

effectiveness’’, as explained in the 

Definitions section of this notice. 

Proposed Priority 7 

Under this proposed priority, the 

Secretary would fund projects that are 

supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness (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, as specified by 34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3), we would consider only 

applications that meet the priority. 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Proposed Requirements 

The Secretary proposes the following 

requirements for the SEED Grant 

program. We may apply these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Eligible applicants: To be eligible for 

a SEED Grant program grant, an entity 

must be a national not-for-profit 

organization (as defined in this notice). 

Each applicant must provide in its 

application documentation that it is a 

national not-for-profit organization (as 

defined in this notice). 

Evidence of effectiveness: To be 

eligible for funding, an applicant must 

demonstrate that its proposed project is 

supported by at least moderate evidence 

of effectiveness (as defined in this 

notice). 

Each applicant must provide in its 

application documentation that its 

proposed project is supported by at least 

moderate evidence of effectiveness. An 

applicant that applies for Proposed 

Priority 7 also must provide 

documentation that its proposed project 

is supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness. An applicant must ensure 

that all evidence is available to the 

Department from publically available 

sources and provide links, references, or 

copies of the evidence in the 

application. If the Department 

determines that an applicant has 

provided insufficient evidence that its 

proposed project meets the definition of 

‘‘moderate evidence of effectiveness,’’ or 

‘‘strong evidence of effectiveness,’’ the 

applicant will not have an opportunity 

to provide additional evidence to 

support its application. 

Evaluations: An applicant receiving 

funds under this program must comply 

with the requirements of any evaluation 

of the program conducted by the 

Department. In addition, an applicant 

receiving funds under this program 

must make broadly available through 

formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or 

informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, 

and in print or electronically, the results 

of any evaluations it conducts of its 

funded activities. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 53823 

3See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ 

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

4See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ 

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

5See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ 

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

Proposed Definitions 

The Secretary proposes the following 

definitions for this competition. We 

propose to modify the definition of 

‘‘national not-for-profit organization’’ 

from the definition used in the 2012 

SEED NIA to add more objective criteria 

for determining what type of 

organizations meet the definition. 

Additionally, the definitions relating to 

levels of evidence have both been 

changed to align more closely with 

other Department definitions of levels of 

evidence. We may apply one or more of 

these definitions in any year in which 

this program is in effect. 

Career ladder positions means schoolbased instructional leadership positions 

designed to improve instructional 

practice, which teachers may 

voluntarily accept, such as positions 

described as master teacher, mentor 

teacher, demonstration or model 

teacher, or instructional coach, and for 

which teachers are selected based on 

criteria that are predictive of the ability 

to lead other teachers. 

High-need students means students at 

risk of educational failure, such as 

students who are living in poverty, who 

are English learners, who are far below 

grade level or who are not on track to 

becoming college- or career-ready by 

graduation, who have left school or 

college before receiving, respectively, a 

regular high school diploma or a college 

degree or certificate, who are at risk of 

not graduating with a diploma on time, 

who are homeless, who are in foster 

care, who are pregnant or parenting 

teenagers, who have been incarcerated, 

who are new immigrants, who are 

migrant, or who have disabilities. 

Highly effective principal means a 

principal whose students, overall and 

for each subgroup as described in 

section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act, as amended (ESEA) (i.e., 

economically disadvantaged students, 

students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, students with disabilities, and 

students with limited English 

proficiency), achieve high rates (e.g., 

one and one-half grade levels in an 

academic year) of student growth. 

Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

principal effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, based on student 

growth. Supplemental measures may 

include, for example, high school 

graduation rates; college enrollment 

rates; evidence of providing supportive 

teaching and learning conditions, 

support for ensuring effective 

instruction across subject areas for a 

well-rounded education, strong 

instructional leadership, and positive 

family and community engagement; or 

evidence of attracting, developing, and 

retaining high numbers of effective 

teachers. 

Highly effective teacher means a 

teacher whose students achieve high 

rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels 

in an academic year) of student growth. 

Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, based on student 

growth. Supplemental measures may 

include, for example, multiple 

observation-based assessments of 

teacher performance or evidence of 

leadership roles (which may include 

mentoring or leading professional 

development learning communities) 

that increase effectiveness of other 

teachers in the school or local 

educational agency (LEA). 

Large sample means a sample of 350 

or more students (or other single 

analysis units) who were randomly 

assigned to a treatment or control group, 

or 50 or more groups (such as 

classrooms or schools) that contain 10 

or more students (or other single 

analysis units) and that were randomly 

assigned to a treatment or control group. 

Moderate evidence of effectiveness 

means one of the following conditions 

is met: 

(1) 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; 3 found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

notice) (with no statistically significant 

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. 

(2) 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,4

found a statistically significant favorable 

impact on a relevant outcome (as 

defined in this notice) (with no 

statistically significant 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 (as defined in 

this notice) and a multi-site sample (as 

defined in this notice) (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). 

Multi-site sample means more than 

one site, where site can be defined as an 

LEA, locality, or State. 

National level describes the level of 

scope or effectiveness of a process, 

product, strategy, or practice that is able 

to be effective in a wide variety of 

communities, including rural and urban 

areas, as well as with different groups 

(e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial 

and ethnic groups, migrant populations, 

individuals with disabilities, English 

learners, and individuals of each 

gender). 

National not-for-profit organization 

means an entity that meets the 

definition of ‘‘nonprofit’’ under 34 CFR 

77.1(c) and is of national scope, 

meaning that the entity provides 

services in multiple States to a 

significant number or percentage of 

recipients and is supported by staff or 

affiliates in multiple States. 

Open educational resources means 

teaching, learning, and research 

resources that reside in the public 

domain or have been released under an 

intellectual property license that 

permits their free use or repurposing by 

others. 

Relevant outcome means the student 

outcome or outcomes (or the ultimate 

outcome if not related to students) that 

the proposed project is designed to 

improve, consistent with the specific 

goals of a program. 

Strong evidence of effectiveness 

means that one of the following 

conditions is met: 

(1) 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; 5 found a statistically 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53824 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ 

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

notice) (with no statistically significant 

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 (as 

defined in this notice) and a multi-site 

sample (as defined in this notice) (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). 

(2) 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,6 found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

notice) (with no statistically significant 

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 (as 

defined in this notice) and a multi-site 

sample (as defined in this notice). 

Student achievement means— 

(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) 

A student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under the ESEA; and, as 

appropriate, (2) other measures of 

student learning, such as those 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

definition, provided they are rigorous 

and comparable across schools. 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

alternative measures of student learning 

and performance, such as student scores 

on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; 

student performance on English 

language proficiency assessments; and 

other measures of student achievement 

that are rigorous and comparable across 

schools. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement (as defined in this 

notice) for an individual student 

between two or more points in time. An 

applicant may also include other 

measures that are rigorous and 

comparable across classrooms. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

Background 

The proposed selection criteria are 

intended to ensure that applicants can 

demonstrate that they have the 

experience and capacity to expand or 

develop practices and strategies to 

recruit, select, and prepare or provide 

professional enhancement activities for 

teachers, principals, or both. 

In the absence of specific selection 

criteria for the SEED Grant program, the 

Department would use the general 

selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 of 

the Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

selecting grant recipients. While many 

of the selection criteria subfactors are 

taken directly from EDGAR at 34 CFR 

75.210, they have been combined in 

some cases or organized under different 

criteria in other cases. In addition, some 

subfactors have been edited to focus on 

that which would affect the ability of 

the applicant to implement an effective 

project that meets the SEED Grant 

program’s purposes. 

Under the proposed selection criteria, 

the Secretary would assess the extent to 

which an applicant would be able to 

sustain a project once Federal funding 

through the SEED Grant program is no 

longer available. Thus, eligible 

applicants should propose activities that 

they will be able to sustain without 

funding from the program and should 

include in their management plan the 

specific steps they will take for 

sustained implementation of the 

proposed project. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

The Secretary proposes the following 

selection criteria for evaluating an 

application under the SEED Grant 

program. We may apply one or more of 

these criteria, as well as other criteria or 

factors established in 34 CFR 75.210, in 

any year in which this program is in 

effect. In the notice inviting applications 

or the application package, or both, we 

will announce the maximum possible 

points assigned to each criterion. 

(a) Significance. The Secretary 

considers the significance of the 

proposed project. In determining the 

significance of the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers: 

(1) The significance of the proposed 

project on a national level (as defined in 

this notice). 

(2) The potential contribution of the 

proposed project to the development 

and advancement of teacher and school 

leadership theory, knowledge, and 

practices. 

(3) The importance or magnitude of 

the results or outcomes likely to be 

attained by the proposed project, 

especially improvements in teaching 

and student achievement. 

(b) Quality of the Project Design and 

Services. The Secretary considers the 

quality of the design and services of the 

proposed project. In determining the 

quality of the design and services of the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The extent to which the goals, 

objectives, and outcomes to be achieved 

by the proposed project are clearly 

specified, aligned, and measurable. 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project is part of a comprehensive effort 

to improve teaching and learning and 

support rigorous academic standards for 

students. 

(3) The extent to which the training or 

professional development services to be 

provided by the proposed project will 

be of sufficient quality, intensity, and 

duration to lead to improvements in 

practice among the recipients of those 

services. 

(c) Quality of the Management Plan 

and Personnel. The Secretary considers 

the quality of the management plan for 

the proposed project and of the 

personnel who will carry out the 

proposed project. In determining the 

quality of the management plan and the 

project personnel, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director, key project personnel, 

and project consultants or 

subcontractors. 

(2) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks. 

(3) The extent to which the time 

commitments of the project director and 

other key project personnel are 

appropriate and adequate to meet the 

objectives of the proposed project. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

management plan includes sufficient 

and reasonable resources to effectively 

carry out the proposed project, 

including the project evaluation. 

(d) Sustainability. The Secretary 

considers the adequacy of resources to 

continue the proposed project after the 

grant period ends. In determining the 

adequacy of resources and the potential 

for utility of the proposed project’s 

activities and products by other 

organizations, the Secretary considers: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project is designed to build capacity and 

yield results that will extend beyond the 

period of Federal financial assistance. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 53825 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project is likely to yield findings and 

products (such as information, 

materials, processes, or techniques) that 

may be used by other agencies and 

organizations. 

(3) The extent to which the applicant 

will disseminate information about 

results and outcomes of the proposed 

project in ways that will enable others, 

including the public, to use the 

information or strategies. 

(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. In determining the 

quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 

considers one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and 

appropriate to the goals, objectives, and 

outcomes of the proposed project. 

(2) The extent to which the evaluation 

includes the use of objective 

performance measures that are clearly 

related to the intended outcomes of the 

project and will produce quantitative 

and qualitative data. 

(3) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide performance feedback and 

permit periodic assessment of progress 

toward achieving intended outcomes. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

evaluation effectively. 

Note: We encourage applicants to review 

the following technical assistance resources 

on evaluation: (1) What Works Clearinghouse 

Procedures and Standards Handbook: http:// 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/ 

doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/ 

NCEE Technical Methods papers: http:// 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

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 these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we invite 

applications through a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

This proposed 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 proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

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 practical—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 behavior 

changes.’’ 

We are taking this proposed 

regulatory action only on a reasoned 

determination that the benefits justify 

the costs. In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, we selected 

those approaches that maximize net 

benefits. The Department believes that 

this proposed regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits 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. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The costs of carrying out activities 

would be paid for with program funds 

and with matching funds provided by 

private-sector partners. Thus, the costs 

of implementation would not be a 

burden for any eligible applicants, 

including small entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department conducts a 

preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and continuing 

collections of information in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). 

This helps ensure that: the public 

understands the Department’s collection 

instructions, respondents can provide 

the requested data in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the Department can properly assess the 

impact of collection requirements on 

respondents. 

We estimate that each applicant 

would spend approximately 176 hours 

of staff time to address the proposed 

requirements and selection criteria, 

prepare the application, and obtain 

necessary clearances. The total number 

of hours for all expected applicants is an 

estimated 2,640 hours. We estimate the 

total cost per hour of the applicant-level 

staff who will carry out this work to be 

$57 per hour. The total estimated cost 

for all applicants is estimated to be 

$150,480. 

Under the PRA, the Department has 

submitted to OMB for its review a copy 

of the information collection (including 

the burden estimates) for the SEED 

discretionary grant application using the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

Through this NPP, OII seeks comment 

on this information collection. If you 

want to comment on the proposed 

information collection, please send your 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53826 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Desk Officer for U.S. Department of 

Education. Send these comments by 

email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov 

or by fax to (202) 395–6974. You may 

also send a copy of these comments to 

the Department contact named in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this notice. 

In preparing your comments you may 

want to review the ICR, which we 

maintain in the Education Department 

Information Collection System (EDICS) 

at http://edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on 

Browse Pending Collections. This 

proposed collection is identified as 

proposed collection (04833) 1855-New. 

This ICR is also available on OMB’s 

RegInfo Web site at www.reginfo.gov. 

We consider your comments on this 

proposed collection of information in— 

• Deciding whether the proposed 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

• Evaluating the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection, including the validity of our 

methodology and assumptions; 

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the information we 

collect; and 

• Minimizing the burden on those 

who must respond. This includes 

exploring the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

contained in these proposed priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure 

that OMB gives your comments full 

consideration, it is important that OMB 

receives your comments on the 

proposed collection within 30 days after 

publication. This does not affect the 

deadline for your comments to us on the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

Please note that a Federal agency 

cannot conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information unless OMB approves the 

collection under the PRA and the 

corresponding information collection 

instrument displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. Notwithstanding 

any other provision of law, no person is 

required to comply with, or is subject to 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information if the 

collection instrument does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

We will provide the OMB control 

number when we publish the notice of 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

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: August 30, 2012. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21814 Filed 8–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–YELL–10569; 2310–0070–422] 

36 CFR Part 7 

RIN 1024–AE10 

Special Regulations; Areas of the 

National Park System, Yellowstone 

National Park 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule would implement 

an amended Record of Decision for the 

2011 Winter Use Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement and would govern 

winter visitation and certain 

recreational activities in Yellowstone 

National Park for the 2012–2013 winter 

season. The rule proposes to retain, for 

one additional year, the regulation and 

management framework that have been 

in place for the past three winter 

seasons (2009–2010, 2010–2011 and 

2011–2012). Specifically, the rule would 

retain provisions that require most 

recreational snowmobiles operating in 

the park to meet certain National Park 

Service air and sound emissions 

requirements; require snowmobiles and 

snowcoaches in Yellowstone to be 

accompanied by a commercial guide; set 

daily entry limits on the numbers of 

snowmobiles (up to 318) and 

snowcoaches (up to 78) that may enter 

the park; and prohibit traveling off 

designated oversnow routes. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments, identified by Regulation 

Identifier Number (RIN) 1024–AE10, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Yellowstone National Park, 

Winter Use Proposed Rule, P.O. Box 

168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 

82190. 

• Hand Deliver to: Management 

Assistant’s Office, Headquarters 

Building, Mammoth Hot Springs, 

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 

All submissions received must 

include the agency name and RIN. For 

additional information see ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wade Vagias, Management Assistant’s 

Office, Headquarters Building, 

Yellowstone National Park, 307–344– 

2035 or at the address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The National Park Service (NPS) has 

managed winter use in Yellowstone 

National Park for several decades. A 

detailed history of the winter use issue, 

past planning efforts, and litigation is 

provided on the park’s Web site, http:// 

www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/ 

timeline.htm. The park has most 

recently operated under a temporary 

one-year rule (76 FR 77131). That rule, 

which expired by its own terms on 

March 15, 2012, had extended for one 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS