Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17035 

with this deviation. You may also visit 

the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email Ms. Judy LeungYee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard 

District, telephone (212) 668–7165, 

email judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Metro-North (Devon) Bridge at mile 3.9, 

across Housatonic River at Stratford, 

Connecticut, has 19 feet of vertical 

clearance at mean high water and 25 

feet of vertical clearance at mean low 

water. The existing drawbridge 

operation regulations are listed at 33 

CFR 117.207(b). 

The owner of the bridge, Connecticut 

Department of Transportation, requested 

a temporary deviation from the schedule 

to facilitate structural repairs at the 

bridge. 

The waterway has recreational vessels 

traffic of various sizes. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

Metro-North (Devon) Bridge at mile 3.9, 

across the Housatonic River may remain 

in the closed position from 6 a.m. 

Monday through 6 p.m. on Thursday, 

from April 1, 2014 through May 22, 

2014. Vessels able to pass through the 

bridge in the closed positions may do so 

at anytime. There is no alternate route 

for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will 

also inform the users of the waterways 

through our Local and Broadcast Notice 

to Mariners of the change in operating 

schedule for the bridge so that vessels 

can arrange their transits to minimize 

any impact caused by the temporary 

deviation. 

The Coast Guard contacted the 

marinas and no objections were 

received. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: March 18, 2014. 

C.J. Bisignano, 

Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06843 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapters I–VI 

[Docket ID ED–2013–OII–0110] 

RIN 1894–AA05 

Final Priority—Promise Zones 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) announces a priority that the 

Department of Education (Department) 

may use for any appropriate 

discretionary grant program in fiscal 

year (FY) 2014 and future years. 

Through this action, we intend to focus 

Federal financial assistance on 

expanding the number of Department 

programs and projects that support 

activities in designated Promise Zones. 

This action will permit all offices in 

the Department to use this priority, as 

appropriate, in any discretionary grant 

competition. 

DATES: This priority is effective April 

28, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

Hodgdon. Telephone: 202–453–6620. Or 

by email: Jane.Hodgdon@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: 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3, 

3474. 

We published a proposed priority 

(NPP) in the Federal Register on 

October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63913). That 

notice contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the priority. There are no 

differences between the NPP and this 

notice of final priority. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 10 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priority. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. In 

addition, we do not address general 

comments that raised concerns not 

directly related to the proposed priority. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments follows. 

Comment: Several commenters 

addressed the Promise Zones Initiative 

as described in the Background Section 

of the NPP. Many expressed support for 

the Promise Zones Initiative, its 

potential to impact community 

residents, and the inclusion of a focus 

on education in the designated Promise 

Zones. Other commenters expressed 

concerns about the small number of 

Promise Zones designations to be made, 

about the funding and resources that 

would be made available to Promise 

Zones designees, about how the 

progress of the Promise Zones Initiative 

would be evaluated, and whether the 

10-year timeframe of the designation 

would be sufficient to realize long-term 

impacts. Additionally, one commenter 

requested clarification on the role that 

Federal staff would play in working 

with Promise Zones designees, and two 

commenters suggested that the Promise 

Zone Initiative should expand resident 

access to housing opportunities in 

higher income communities. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

feedback and suggestions on the 

Promise Zones Initiative. The 

Department coordinates with the U.S. 

Departments of Housing and Urban 

Development, Agriculture, and Justice 

to support the administration of the 

Promise Zones Initiative. As such, we 

will share the comments regarding the 

broader initiative with our Federal 

Promise Zones partners for 

consideration in the development and 

implementation of any Promise Zones 

opportunity. However, because the 

comments about the broader initiative 

do not provide specific 

recommendations for the Department’s 

proposed priority, we are not providing 

a direct response to each topic raised in 

these comments. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

their support for the Promise Zones 

priority and the important role that 

education can play in revitalizing a 

community. While supportive of the 

purpose of Promise Zones, one 

commenter expressed concern about 

including a priority for a potential pool 

of 20 Promise Zone designees. The 

commenter further stated that because 

the scope of the Promise Zones 

Initiative is small, it does not make 

sense to prioritize those few 

communities. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for the President’s 

efforts to combat poverty, and we agree 

that education is critical to building 

ladders of opportunity to the middle 

class. While the ultimate number of 

Promise Zones communities is 

relatively small, the number of 

discretionary grants that might support 

Promise Zones is not so limited. The 

priority can be used with any 

appropriate discretionary grant 

competition, and all eligible entities that 

are planning to serve and coordinate 

with a Promise Zone, such as local 

educational agencies and non-profit 

organizations, may respond to this 

priority. The purpose of the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17036 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Department’s Promise Zone priority is 

to focus the Department’s grant 

resources on communities of acute 

need, as indicated by their Promise 

Zone designation. 

Furthermore, the Promise Zones 

Initiative provides a unique opportunity 

for cross-agency collaboration that will 

likely benefit other communities as 

well. For example, the participating 

Federal agencies will be working with 

the designated Promise Zones to 

improve coordination among Federal 

resources to enhance place-based 

strategies and increase the progress of 

community revitalization initiatives. As 

outcomes are achieved and best 

practices are developed, Federal 

agencies will apply relevant lessons 

learned regarding the delivery of 

Federal funding and services to other 

communities working toward similar 

goals. In addition, we expect that the 

joint investment in and evaluation of 

Promise Zones will result in the 

creation of strong, comprehensive 

models of community transformation 

that will inform the work of other 

communities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern that a Promise Zones 

priority may result in the exclusion of 

other potential applicants from 

receiving an award. Of those 

commenters, one commenter’s concern 

was specific to the TRIO Upward Bound 

program. Another commenter requested 

that the Department work with the 

charter school community prior to the 

use of the priority in the Charter 

Schools program, a discretionary grant 

program. One commenter raised a 

concern that layering a Promise Zone 

priority onto a program with a different 

focus might weaken the existing 

program. 

Discussion: We recognize that Federal 

discretionary grant funds are highly 

competitive and provide critical support 

to communities that are working to 

improve student academic achievement. 

However, the Department’s Promise 

Zones priority is intended to focus 

limited Federal resources in designated 

Promise Zones in order to improve the 

outcomes of the families, students, and 

children in those highly distressed 

locations. As stated in the NPP, the 

Secretary recognizes that this priority 

will not be appropriate for all 

discretionary grant programs. Each 

discretionary grant program is in the 

best position to work with its 

constituent communities and to 

determine the priorities critical to 

achieving their program outcomes. 

Additionally, when determining 

whether to use a priority in a given 

discretionary grant competition, the 

Department considers the intended 

goals of the program in order to ensure 

the use of any priority is appropriate to 

and aligned with the purpose of the 

discretionary program. The Promise 

Zones priority will not be used if it is 

not appropriate to the intent or purpose 

of a program or would somehow 

diminish its effect. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priority 

To ensure that the Department’s 

discretionary grant programs can 

provide, where appropriate, the 

increased access to additional 

investments for Promise Zones, the 

Secretary establishes a priority for 

projects that will serve and coordinate 

with a federally designated Promise 

Zone. 

Final priority—Promise Zones. 

Projects that are designed to serve and 

coordinate with a federally designated 

Promise Zone. 

Types of Priorities: When inviting 

applications for a competition using one 

or more priorities, we designate the type 

of each priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

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

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

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

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, subject 

to meeting applicable rulemaking 

requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, 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 

set forth in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is 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 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17037 

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 final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits would justify its costs. In 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected the approach 

that would maximize net benefits. Based 

on the analysis that follows, the 

Departments believe that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

proposed 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, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: Some of 

the programs affected by this proposed 

priority are subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

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 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/fedsys. 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 document 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: March 24, 2014. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06828 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0775; FRL–9906–73– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR92 

Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory 

Definition of Volatile Organic 

Compounds—Exclusion of 2-amino-2- 

methyl-1-propanol (AMP) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to revise the regulatory definition 

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This 

direct final action adds 2-amino-2- 

methyl-1-propanol (also known as AMP; 

CAS number 124–68–5) to the list of 

compounds excluded from the 

regulatory definition of VOCs on the 

basis that this compound makes a 

negligible contribution to tropospheric 

ozone formation. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 25, 

2014 without further notice, unless the 

EPA receives adverse comment on this 

action by May 27, 2014. If the EPA 

receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the final rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0775, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Email: a-and-r-Docket@

epamail.epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0775. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0775. 

• Mail: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0775, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William 

Jefferson Clinton, West Building Room: 

3334, Mail Code: 28221T, Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0775. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0775. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov, 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES