40084 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34) (g), of the 

Commandant Instruction because it 

involves the establishment of a safety 

zone. 

A preliminary environmental analysis 

checklist and a preliminary categorical 

exclusion determination are available in 

the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR parts 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0418 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0418 Safety Zone; Antique Boat 

Festival, Niagara River, Grand Island, NY 

(a) Location. The safety zone will 

encompass all waters of the Niagara 

River, Grand Island, NY starting at 

position 42°59′59′′ N, 078°56′22′′ W, 

East to 42°59′54′′ N, 078°56′14′′ W, 

South to 42°57′54′′ N, 078°56′04′′ W, 

West to 42°057′48′′ N, 078°56′22′′ W. 

(NAD 83). 

(b) Effective and Enforcement Period. 

This regulation is effective and will be 

enforced on September 7, 2013, from 

9:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) In accordance with the general 

regulations in section 165.23 of this 

part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring 

within this safety zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene 

representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port 

Buffalo or his designated on-scene 

representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or 

petty officer who has been designated 

by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act 

on his behalf. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo 

or his on-scene representative to obtain 

permission to do so. The Captain of the 

Port Buffalo or his on-scene 

representative may be contacted via 

VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given 

permission to enter or operate in the 

safety zone must comply with all 

directions given to them by the Captain 

of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene 

representative. 

Dated: June 14, 2013. 

S.M. Wischmann, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16053 Filed 7–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

Proposed Requirement—Migrant 

Education Program Consortium 

Incentive Grant Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed requirement. 

[CFDA Number 84.144F] 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes to change the maximum 

duration of grants awarded to State 

educational agencies (SEAs) under the 

Migrant Education Program (MEP) 

Consortium Incentive Grant (CIG) 

Program from two years to three years. 

We take this action to allow 

participating SEAs to have an additional 

year to conduct needed activities, 

evaluate their projects, and provide a 

final report addressing their success in 

completing project activities and 

achieving the objectives and outcomes 

that were established in their approved 

CIG program application. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before August 2, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments 

concerning this notice to: Lisa Gillette, 

U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E313, 

Washington, DC 20202–6135. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by email, use the following address: 

lisa.gillette@ed.gov. You must include 

the term ‘‘CIG-Duration’’ in the subject 

line of your electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Gillette. Telephone: (202) 260–1426, or 

by email: lisa.gillette@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation 

to Comment: We invite you to submit 

comments regarding this notice. 

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 this proposed 

requirement. 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 program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice in room 3E313, 400 

Maryland Avenue, 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. 

Purpose of Program: The MEP, 

authorized in title I, part C, section 1301 

et seq. of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 6391 et seq.), is a 

State-operated and State-administered 

formula grant program. The MEP helps 

SEAs support high-quality and 

comprehensive educational programs 

that do two things: provide migratory 

children with appropriate educational 

and supportive services that address 

their special needs in a coordinated and 

efficient manner, and give migratory 

children the opportunity to meet the 

same challenging State academic 

content and student academic 

achievement standards that all children 

are expected to meet. 

One component of the MEP is the CIG 

program, authorized in section 1308(d) 

of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6398(d)). 

Through the MEP CIG program, the 

Department provides financial 

incentives to SEAs to participate in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 40085 

high-quality consortia that improve the 

interstate or intrastate coordination of 

migrant education programs by 

addressing key needs of migratory 

children who have their education 

interrupted. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6398. 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 200, subpart C. 

Proposed Requirement 

This notice contains one proposed 

requirement. 

Duration of Consortium Incentive 

Grants 

Background: The Department 

published a notice of final requirements 

for the MEP CIG Program in the Federal 

Register on March 3, 2004 (69 FR 

10110) (2004 Notice), and we have used 

these final requirements for CIG 

competitions since fiscal year (FY) 2004. 

The 2004 Notice contained basic 

requirements that govern CIG 

applications, established seven 

priorities that applicants must address, 

established a two-tiered funding 

formula (based on the size of the SEA’s 

MEP formula grant) to determine the 

amount of the award the Department 

will make to SEAs that belong to 

consortia selected for an award, and 

authorized participating SEAs to use 

these funds to augment their MEP 

formula grant award. We subsequently 

published a notice of final priority for 

the MEP CIG program in the Federal 

Register on March 12, 2008 (73 FR 

13217), in which we added an eighth 

priority. 

The 2004 Notice also established a 

project period of up to two years for 

grants awarded under the MEP CIG 

program. Grantees are required under 

the 2004 Notice and 34 CFR 75.118 and 

75.590 of the Education Department 

General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR) to submit a performance report 

(through the consortium’s lead State) 

toward the end of the first project year 

and a final summary evaluation report 

at the end of the second project year. 

These reports must address the 

participating SEAs’ completion of 

activities and attainment of objectives of 

the approved consortium. We explained 

in the 2004 Notice that we would not 

conduct a new incentive grant 

competition in FY 2005 but would make 

second-year continuation funding 

contingent on the SEAs’ substantial 

completion of first-year consortium 

activities and attainment of the 

outcomes identified in the approved 

consortium application; the amount of 

second-year continuation funding was 

to be based on the same two-tiered 

formula described in the 2004 Notice. 

We have followed this process for the 

funding of second-year continuation 

awards since 2004. 

The Department last awarded CIGs in 

FY 2012. Currently, 37 SEAs (out of a 

total of 47 SEAs that receive MEP 

formula grant program funds) 

participate in CIG program-funded 

consortia. 

We are proposing to change the 

project period for several reasons. The 

2004 Notice limited the MEP CIG 

awards to two years because they were 

intended to fund innovative pilot 

activities that grantees would put in 

place during the grant period, and then 

would continue with basic MEP formula 

grant funding provided under Title I, 

part C of the ESEA if the activities 

proved useful. However, based on our 

knowledge of the progress SEAs 

generally make on consortium projects, 

we believe that current grantees would 

benefit from a third year in which to 

work on and implement their CIG 

projects. In addition, although the twoyear project period may sometimes be 

sufficient, it unnecessarily inhibits the 

Secretary’s ability to establish a threeyear project period for the CIG program 

where it is appropriate to do so. 

Increasing the project period that the 

Secretary may establish for the CIG 

program by one year will permit the 

Secretary to exercise judgment about 

what period would best permit grantees 

to achieve results and obtain better data 

to conduct the needed evaluations of 

their projects. 

Proposed Requirement—Duration of 

Incentive Grants: 

The Secretary may provide a 

maximum project period of three years 

for grants awarded under the MEP CIG 

program. The Secretary may extend the 

current two-year project period of the 

FY 2012 grantees to three years as well 

as determine a project period for future 

competitions of up to three years. 

For grants with a three-year project 

period, grantees must submit a 

performance report at the end of each 

project year and are eligible for a 

continuation award at the end of the 

first and second project years based on 

the two-tiered funding formula in the 

2004 Notice. The second and third 

year’s continuation funding is 

contingent on the grantee making 

substantial progress in performing the 

previous year’s consortium activities 

and in attaining the outcomes identified 

in the approved consortium application. 

Grantees must submit their final 

summary evaluation report at the end of 

the third project year. 

Final Requirement: 

We will announce the final 

requirement in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

requirement 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. We invite applications through 

a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This 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 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40086 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 this proposed 

requirement only on a reasoned 

determination that its benefits would 

justify its costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible formal (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/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 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. 

Dated: June 28, 2013. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16021 Filed 7–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0343; FRL–9824–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Illinois state 

implementation plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency on April 11, 2013. The 

submission revises Title 35 of the 

Illinois Administrative Code Part 254, 

Annual Emissions Report. The revision 

provides clarification regarding 

greenhouse gases as it relates to the 

annual emissions report. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 2, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0946, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, 

hatten.charles@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS