72600 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

and Definitions—Charter Schools 

Program (CSP) Grants for National 

Leadership Activities 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, and definitions. 

CFDA NUMBER: 84.282N. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement proposes priorities, 

requirements, and definitions for CSP 

Grants for National Leadership 

Activities and may use these priorities, 

requirements, and definitions for a 

competition in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and 

later years. The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary is taking this action to ensure 

that projects funded with CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities address 

key policy issues currently facing 

charter schools and impact stakeholders 

on a national scale. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before January 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Brian Martin, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., Room 4W224, 

Washington, DC 20202–5970. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by email, use the following address: 

brian.martin@ed.gov. You must include 

the term ‘‘National Leadership 

Activities’’ in the subject line of your 

electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Martin. Telephone: (202) 205– 

9085 or by email: brian.martin@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 

document. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final priorities, 

requirements, and definitions, we urge 

you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, or 

definition 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 these proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definitions. 

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 in room 4W224, 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. 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 purpose of 

the CSP is to increase national 

understanding of the charter school 

model by— 

(1) Providing financial assistance for 

the planning, program design, and 

initial implementation of charter 

schools; 

(2) Evaluating the effects of charter 

schools, including the effects on 

students, student achievement, student 

growth, staff, and parents; 

(3) Expanding the number of highquality charter schools available to 

students across the Nation; and 

(4) Encouraging the States to provide 

support to charter schools for facilities 

financing in an amount more nearly 

commensurate to the amount the States 

have typically provided for traditional 

public schools. 

The purpose of the CSP Grants for 

National Leadership Activities is to 

support efforts by eligible entities to 

improve the quality of charter schools 

by providing technical assistance and 

other types of support on issues of 

national significance and scope. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7221–7221i. 

CSP Grants for National Leadership 

Activities are authorized under 20 U.S.C. 

7221d(a). 

Proposed Priortities: This notice 

contains five proposed priorities. 

Background 

The Department most recently 

conducted competitions for CSP Grants 

for National Leadership Activities in 

FYs 2006 and 2010. In those 

competitions, we invited applications 

for projects designed to improve 

stakeholder capacity to support highquality charter schools but did not 

require or give competitive preference to 

particular types of projects. As a result, 

applications submitted under the 

competition varied considerably in 

scope and content. 

To ensure that projects funded with 

CSP Grants for National Leadership 

Activities in future years address key 

policy issues facing charter schools on 

a national scale, the Department 

proposes the priorities in this notice. 

These priorities take into consideration 

the continuing growth of charter schools 

across the nation and the increasing 

need to support the capacity and 

oversight of all charter schools. The 

priorities also recognize the important 

role that charter schools can play in 

improving educational outcomes for 

students with disabilities and English 

Learners and in creating personalized, 

technology-based learning environments 

for high-need students (as defined in 

this notice). 

Proposed Priority 1—Improving 

Efficiency Through Economies of Scale 

Background 

Traditional public school districts 

benefit from economies of scale across 

multiple aspects of school operations. 

Compared to charter schools, traditional 

public schools tend to have higher 

student enrollment, which may result in 

lower average costs per student for 

various activities or a wider variety of 

available support services. For example, 

traditional public school districts can 

make mass purchases of supplies, 

equipment, and non-academic services, 

including facilities maintenance, food, 

data systems, insurance, and 

transportation services. These districts 

can consolidate academic services 

across a large number of schools, 

including services such as curriculum 

development and alignment, student 

assessments, and professional 

development for teachers and school 

leaders. They can consolidate services 

for specific student populations, such as 

students with disabilities or English 

Learners. They can provide a range of 

arts and athletic opportunities for their 

students. They have the ability, through 

different funding structures, sustained 

economies of scale, and historical 

relationships with colleges, universities, 

and nonprofit organizations, to recruit 

teachers and leaders more broadly, and 

in a more structured way, than charter 

schools. 

Charter schools are explicitly 

designed to have the autonomy to 

employ innovative, promising 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 72601 

1http://credo.stanford.edu/. 

approaches to public education. This 

autonomy, however, can limit charter 

schools’ ability to take advantage of the 

economies of scale available to 

traditional public school districts, 

impeding the charter school sector’s 

ability to improve its performance and 

scale up high-quality charter school 

models. 

As the charter school sector continues 

to grow, there is an increasing 

opportunity for charter schools to form 

consortia to achieve the benefits of 

economies of scale and, thus, improve 

performance and increase the number of 

high-quality charter schools nationwide. 

The Department proposes this priority 

to support such efforts. 

Proposed Priority 

This proposed priority is for projects 

of national significance and scope that 

promote shared systems for acquiring 

goods or services to achieve efficiencies 

in the use of time, staff, money, services 

for special populations, or other 

resources for the purpose of creating 

and sustaining high-quality charter 

schools (as defined in this notice). 

An applicant addressing this priority 

is not required to apply as part of a 

partnership or consortium, but must 

include plans for developing a 

consortium, or consortia of charter 

schools that will share systems for 

acquiring goods or services. The plans 

must include detailed descriptions 

(including supporting documentation) 

of the following: 

(1) The activities of the proposed 

consortium or consortia and 

demonstrate how and to what extent the 

activities will achieve efficiencies in the 

use of time, staff, money, services for 

special populations, or other areas 

related to operating high-quality charter 

schools; 

(2) Proposed members of the 

consortium or consortia, how the 

composition of this consortium or 

consortia contributes to achieving 

efficiencies, the specific activities each 

member will carry out, and how specific 

activities will include entities outside of 

the network that the lead applicant 

currently manages; 

(3) How proposed project activities 

will help create and sustain high-quality 

charter schools; 

(4) How information about the 

proposed project’s activities will be 

disseminated primarily to charter 

schools as the primary stakeholder 

group, and secondarily to other 

stakeholders, such as charter school 

support organizations and authorized 

public chartering agencies, as 

appropriate, at the charter school 

national level (as defined in this notice); 

(5) How the dissemination strategy 

will include assembling a community of 

practice (as defined in this notice) for 

the stakeholder group(s) served; and 

(6) The national significance and 

scope of the proposed project. 

Proposed Priority 2—Improving 

Accountability 

Background 

While there are many high-performing 

charter schools across the nation, 

charter school performance varies 

significantly and too many persistently 

low-performing charter schools are not 

held accountable for their results. (For 

example, see the January 30, 2013 report 

from the Center for Research on 

Education Outcome’s entitled, ‘‘Charter 

School Growth and Replication’’, which 

analyzes student performance and 

progress data from 25 States, and the 

District of Columbia, that have enacted 

charter school laws.) 1

Despite 43 distinct sets of State laws 

governing charter schools, and almost 

1,000 different entities authorizing 

charter schools, there are some common 

promising practices that provide the 

degree of oversight necessary to ensure 

that charter schools deliver on their 

promises. Over the lifespan of a charter 

school, authorizing practices will have a 

direct impact on the quality of the 

charter school sector. Authorizers are 

responsible for conducting rigorous 

application reviews to ensure new 

schools are of a high quality. Once 

schools are open, accountability 

practices for charter schools need to be 

strengthened within States. For 

example, charter school renewal should 

occur regularly enough to ensure 

accountability and provide an 

opportunity for amendment of the 

charter or closure of poor-performing 

schools. Authorizers should have clear 

policies to hold schools accountable 

more consistently for meeting their 

academic, financial, and operational 

performance goals, as well as for 

complying with all applicable laws, 

including civil rights laws requiring 

equal access. 

Through the development, 

refinement, and dissemination of 

authorizers’ promising practices in areas 

such as charter school approval, 

performance monitoring, charter 

contract renewal, and charter school 

closure, the Department expects 

authorizers to hold charter schools more 

accountable and to increase the number 

of high-quality seats available to 

students. These promising practices will 

help ensure that new charter schools 

have demonstrated that they are 

positioned to succeed, poor-performing 

charter schools are closed, and highquality charter schools are replicated 

and expanded to serve more students. 

Proposed Priority 

This proposed priority is for projects 

of national significance and scope that 

are designed to improve authorized 

public chartering agencies’ capacity to 

conduct rigorous application reviews, 

monitor and oversee charter schools 

using data and measurable performance 

goals, close underperforming schools, 

replicate and expand high-performing 

schools, maintain a portfolio of highquality charter schools, and evaluate 

and communicate the performance of 

that portfolio. 

Applicants addressing this priority 

must provide detailed descriptions 

(including supporting documentation) 

of the following: 

(1) How the proposed project will 

improve, within a variety of 

communities in one or more States, 

authorized public chartering agencies’ 

capacity to: 

i. Approve only high-quality charter 

schools that meet the standards of a 

rigorous application process and review; 

ii. Monitor and oversee charter 

schools through the regular collection of 

data, including student performance 

and financial data, and measurable 

performance goals; 

iii. Identify schools eligible for 

renewal and those that should be closed 

through clear renewal and revocation 

criteria; 

iv. Maintain portfolios of high-quality 

charter schools by evaluating authorizer 

and portfolio performance and 

disseminating information on the 

performance of those portfolios; 

(2) The applicant’s prior success in 

improving, within a variety of 

communities in one or more States, 

authorized public chartering agencies’ 

capacity to: 

i. Approve only high-quality charter 

schools that meet the standards of a 

rigorous application process and review; 

ii. Monitor and oversee charter 

schools through the regular collection of 

data, including student performance 

and financial data, and measurable 

performance goals; 

iii. Identify schools eligible for 

renewal and those that should be closed 

through clear renewal and revocation 

criteria; 

iv. Maintain portfolios of high-quality 

charter schools by evaluating authorizer 

and portfolio performance and 

disseminating information on the 

performance of those portfolios, and 

help improve the ability of other 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
72602 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/tableell-1.asp. 

authorized public chartering agencies to 

produce similar results; 

(3) How dissemination activities focus 

on authorized public chartering 

agencies as the primary stakeholder 

group, and secondarily on other 

stakeholders, such as charter school 

support organizations or charter 

schools, as appropriate, at the charter 

school national level; 

(4) How the dissemination strategy 

will include assembling a community of 

practice for the stakeholder group(s) 

served; and 

(5) The national significance and 

scope of the proposed project. 

Proposed Priority 3—Students With 

Disabilities 

Background 

As public schools, it is essential that 

charter schools provide equitable access 

and appropriate educational services to 

all students, regardless of disability, as 

set forth in the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 and the Department’s Section 504 

regulations. A GAO report released in 

June, 2012 found that charter schools 

enrolled a lower percentage of students 

with disabilities than traditional public 

schools. This discrepancy may have 

many contributing factors that are likely 

to vary from school to school. 

Regardless, charter schools should have 

the capacity to serve all students with 

disabilities irrespective of severity or 

type of disability. The Department 

believes that charter schools are wellpositioned to develop new approaches 

to meeting the needs of students with 

disabilities and improve educational 

outcomes for these students. The 

Department proposes a priority for 

projects designed to improve charter 

schools’ capacity, through a variety of 

methods, to recruit and serve students 

with disabilities more effectively. 

Proposed Priority 

This proposed priority is for projects 

of national significance and scope that 

are designed to increase access to 

charter schools for students with 

disabilities and increase the schools’ 

enrollment, as well as improve 

achievement (including student 

achievement and student growth) and 

attainment (including high school 

graduation rates and college enrollment 

rates) for students with disabilities in 

charter schools, through one or both of 

the following activities: 

(1) Developing strategies and tools to 

increase access to charter schools for 

students with disabilities and increase 

the schools’ capacity to enroll students 

with disabilities, and improve student 

achievement, student growth, high 

school graduation rates, and college 

enrollment rates for students with 

disabilities. 

(2) Disseminating promising practices 

that increase access to charter schools 

for students with disabilities and 

increase the schools’ capacity to enroll 

students with disabilities; and improve 

student achievement, student growth, 

high school graduation rates, and 

college enrollment rates for students 

with disabilities. 

Proposed Priority 4—English Learners 

Background 

From 2001 to 2010 the number of 

students identified as English Learners 

increased significantly, growing from 

approximately 3,700,000 to 4,660,275 

nationwide. In 2011, the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress 

reports on mathematics, reading, and 

science showed a difference in scores 

between English Learners and nonEnglish Learners of 49, 47, and 62 

percent, respectively.2 The Department 

believes that charter schools are wellpositioned to develop new approaches 

to meeting the needs of English Learners 

and can play an integral role in closing 

the achievement and attainment gaps 

between English Learners and their 

peers. The Department proposes a 

priority for projects designed to improve 

charter schools’ capacity, through a 

variety of methods, to recruit and serve 

English Learners more effectively. 

Proposed Priority 

This proposed priority is for projects 

of national significance and scope that 

are designed to increase access to 

charter schools for English Learners and 

increase the schools’ enrollment, as well 

as improve achievement (including 

student achievement and student 

growth) and attainment (including 

English proficiency, high school 

graduation rates, and college enrollment 

rates) for English Learners in charter 

schools, through one or more of the 

following activities: 

(1) Developing strategies and tools to 

increase access to charter schools for 

English Learners and increase the 

schools’ capacity to enroll English 

Learners, and improve student 

achievement, student growth, English 

proficiency, high school graduation 

rates, and college enrollment rates for 

English Learner students. 

(2) Disseminating promising practices 

that increase access to charter schools 

for English Learners and increase the 

schools’ capacity to enroll English 

Learners, and improve student 

achievement, student growth, English 

proficiency, high school graduation 

rates, and college enrollment rates for 

English Learners. 

Proposed Priority 5—Personalized 

Technology-Enabled Learning 

Background 

Learning models that blend 

traditional, classroom-based teaching 

and learning with virtual, online, or 

digital delivery of personalized 

instructional content offer the potential 

to transform public education and create 

significant improvements in students’ 

achievement, growth, engagement, and 

non-cognitive skills. In order to achieve 

superior outcomes, the effective 

development and implementation of 

these models are essential. 

In particular, technology-enabled 

learning tools must be functional, 

engaging, user-friendly, appropriate for 

students with diverse learning needs, 

and aligned with college-and-careerready standards. Moreover, it is of great 

importance to ensure equitable access to 

and use of these tools and supports by 

high-need students. 

In light of the operational autonomy 

that charter schools possess and the 

focus that many of these schools have 

on serving high-need students, charter 

schools are uniquely positioned to 

contribute to the development and 

implementation of instructional models 

that effectively incorporate technologyenabled personalized learning tools and 

supports for high-need students. The 

Department proposes this priority to 

stimulate and support such efforts. 

Proposed Priority 

This proposed priority is for projects 

of national significance and scope that 

are designed to improve achievement 

and attainment outcomes for high-need 

students through the development and 

implementation in charter schools of 

technology-enabled instructional 

models, tools, and supports that 

personalize instruction. 

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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 72603 

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)). 

Proposed Requirements 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement proposes 

the following requirements for this 

program. We may apply one or more of 

these requirements in any year in which 

this program is in effect. By requiring 

that applicants provide a charter school 

logic model supporting their projects 

and restricting eligibility for grants to 

specific types of entities, the 

Department will ensure that grantees 

have the preparation and experience to 

be successful with a CSP Grant for 

National Leadership Activities. 

Proposed Application Requirements 

Logic Model 

An applicant for a CSP Grant for 

National Leadership Activities must 

provide a charter school logic model (as 

defined in this notice) supporting its 

project. 

Eligibility 

Eligible applicants include (1) State 

educational agencies (SEAs) in States 

with a State statute specifically 

authorizing the establishment of charter 

schools; (2) authorized public chartering 

agencies; (3) public and private 

nonprofit organizations with a mission 

that explicitly includes supporting 

charter schools; and (4) public and 

private nonprofit organizations in 

partnership with an SEA, authorized 

public chartering agency, or a public or 

private nonprofit organization with a 

mission that explicitly includes 

supporting charter schools. Eligible 

applicants may apply as a group or 

consortium. 

Note: The Secretary invites comment on 

this eligibility requirement, particularly 

regarding whether public and private 

nonprofit organizations should be required to 

have a mission that explicitly includes 

supporting charter schools and the elements 

that should be required to confirm eligibility. 

Proposed Definitions 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement proposes 

the following definitions for this 

program. We may apply one or more of 

these definitions in any year in which 

the program is in effect. 

The proposed definitions for ‘‘highquality charter school’’ and ‘‘significant 

compliance issue’’ are based on the 

definitions in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, and definitions 

for the CSP Replication and Expansion 

grant program, published in the Federal 

Register on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40898). 

The proposed definitions for 

‘‘graduation rate’’ and ‘‘student 

achievement’’ are identical to the 

definitions in the Supplemental 

Priorities for Discretionary Grant 

Programs, published in the Federal 

Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 

78510), and corrected on May 12, 2011 

(76 FR 27637). The proposed definitions 

for ‘‘student growth’’ and ‘‘high-need 

students’’ are based on the definitions in 

the Supplemental Priorities for 

Discretionary Grant Programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78510), and 

corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 

27637). The proposed definition for 

‘‘charter school logic model’’ is based on 

the definition of ‘‘logic model’’ in the 

Direct Grant Programs and Definitions 

That Apply to Department Regulations 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 14, 2012 (77 FR 74392). 

Charter school logic model means a 

well-specified conceptual framework 

that identifies key components of the 

proposed practice, strategy, or 

intervention (i.e., the active 

‘‘ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to 

be critical to achieving the relevant 

outcomes) and describes the 

relationships among the key 

components and outcomes, theoretically 

and operationally. 

Charter school national level means, 

with respect to an applicant’s 

dissemination strategy, that the strategy 

covers a wide variety of charter schools, 

authorized public chartering agencies, 

charter support organizations, and other 

stakeholder groups within multiple 

States across the country, including 

rural and urban areas. 

Community of practice means a group 

of stakeholders that interacts regularly 

to solve a persistent problem or to 

improve practice in an area that is 

important to them and the success of the 

grant project. 

Graduation rate means a four-year 

adjusted cohort graduation rate 

consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and 

may also include an extended-year 

adjusted cohort graduation rate 

consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if 

the State in which the proposed project 

is implemented has been approved by 

the Secretary to use such a rate under 

Title I of the ESEA. 

High-need students means children 

and students at risk of educational 

failure, such as children and 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. 

High-quality charter school means a 

school that shows evidence of strong 

academic results for the past three years 

(or over the life of the school, if the 

school has been open for fewer than 

three years), based on the following 

factors: 

(1) Increased student academic 

achievement and attainment for all 

students, including, as applicable, 

educationally disadvantaged students; 

(2) Either (i) Demonstrated success in 

closing historic achievement gaps for 

the subgroups of students described in 

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

or 

(ii) No significant achievement gaps 

between any of the subgroups of 

students described in section 1111 

(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA and 

significant gains in student academic 

achievement have been made with all 

populations of students served by the 

charter school; 

(3) Achieved results (including 

performance on statewide tests, annual 

high school graduation rates, college 

attendance rates, and college persistence 

rates where applicable and available) for 

low-income and other educationally 

disadvantaged students served by the 

charter school; and 

(4) No significant compliance issues 

(as defined in this notice), particularly 

in the areas of student safety and 

financial management. 

Significant compliance issue means a 

violation that did, will, or could lead to 

the revocation of a school’s charter. 

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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
72604 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(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 

achievement data for an individual 

student between two or more points in 

time. Growth may also include other 

measures that are rigorous and 

comparable across classrooms. 

Final Priorities, Requirements and 

Definitions 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, and definitions in a 

notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priorities, 

requirements, and definitions 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 one or more of these proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definitions, 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 

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 behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

priorities, requirements, and definitions 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs. In 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

The Department believes that this 

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, 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. 

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. 

These proposed regulations contain 

information collection requirements that 

are approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1894–0006; these 

proposed regulations do not affect the 

currently approved data collection. 

We estimate that each applicant 

would spend approximately 176 hours 

of staff time to address the proposed 

requirements, prepare the application, 

and obtain necessary clearances. The 

total number of hours for all expected 

applicants is an estimated 7,040 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 

would be $401,280. 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 72605 

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 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: November 26, 2013. 

Nadya Chinoy Dabby, 

Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary for the 

Office of Innovation and Improvement, 

delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and duties of the Assistant Deputy 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–28939 Filed 12–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

36 CFR Part 7 

[NPS–LAMR–13812; PPIMLAMRS0, 

PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000] 

RIN 1024–AE12 

Special Regulations, Areas of the 

National Park System, Lake Meredith 

National Recreation Area, Bicycling 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Through the preparation of a 

Multi-Use Trail Environmental 

Assessment, the National Park Service 

has decided to construct an unpaved, 

multi-use recreational trail in Lake 

Meredith National Recreation Area. The 

multi-use trail will be approximately 22 

miles in length and be open to 

pedestrian and bicycle use only. 

National Park Service regulations 

require promulgation of a special 

regulation to designate new routes for 

bicycle use off park roads and outside 

developed areas. The multi-use trail will 

consist of five contiguous sections 

constructed in five phases, as resources 

become available. This multi-use trail 

will help address the lack of land-based 

recreational opportunities in the region; 

increase the availability of interpretive 

resources in the recreation area; provide 

a firebreak at the urban-wildland 

interface; and improve access for 

emergency response personnel. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments, identified by Regulation 

Identifier Number (RIN) 1024–AE12, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Lake Meredith National 

Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch, 

TX 79036 

• Hand Deliver to: Superintendent’s 

Office, Fritch, TX. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arlene Wimer, Chief of Resource 

Management, Lake Meredith National 

Recreation Area, at 806–857–0309 or at 

the address listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

Congress established Lake Meredith 

National Recreation Area (LAMR or 

recreation area) in 1990 ‘‘to provide for 

public outdoor recreation use and 

enjoyment of the lands and waters 

associated with Lake Meredith in the 

State of Texas, and to protect the scenic, 

scientific, cultural, and other values 

contributing to the public enjoyment of 

such lands and waters. . . .’’ Situated 

approximately 35 miles north of 

Amarillo, Texas within Potter, Moore, 

Hutchinson, and Carson counties, 

LAMR is approximately 45,000 acres in 

size and is the largest public landmass 

in the Texas Panhandle. 

Purpose of Multi-Use Trail 

Recreational Opportunities 

LAMR provides water-based public 

recreational opportunities such as 

fishing, boating, water skiing, and 

swimming. However, dropping water 

levels have caused a substantial loss of 

public access to the lake and a 

corresponding reduction in water-based 

recreational opportunities. Visitation to 

the recreation area has declined over the 

last 10 years, and lower water levels and 

reduced access could be a contributing 

factor to this decline in use. Water 

levels are not expected to increase in the 

near future, and the addition of a multiuse trail could provide visitors with an 

alternative, land-based form of 

recreation which may attract more 

visitors to LAMR. 

LAMR provides some land-based 

recreational opportunities, such as 

hiking, horseback riding, hunting, offroad vehicle use, and camping. Over the 

past several years, bicycling has become 

more popular in the Texas Panhandle, 

as evidenced by increased bike use at 

nearby Palo Duro Canyon State Park. A 

multi-use trail at LAMR will help 

address the increasing demand for bike 

trails in the Texas Panhandle. The 

multi-use trail will also provide 

additional hiking opportunities on the 

trail, and primitive camping 

opportunities in Turkey Creek Canyon. 

Interpretive Resources 

LAMR contains natural and cultural 

resources that are unique to the region. 

The natural and geologic resources of 

the recreation area have enabled human 

survival, subsistence, and adaptation 

that have resulted in a continuum of 

human presence in the area for more 

than 13,000 years. Cultural sites in 

LAMR and the adjacent Alibates Flint 

Quarries National Monument offer 

views of lifeways in cultural periods 

from the Paleo Indians (9,500 BC–6,000 

BC) to the present day. The exposed 

geologic features on the walls of the 

Canadian River valley (i.e. the ‘‘breaks’’) 

reveal active geologic processes that are 

easily visible to an extent not present 

elsewhere in the region. The topography 

and geography of the Canadian River 

breaks create a divergence from the 

surrounding landscape that offers scenic 

values and opportunities not found 

elsewhere in the region. 

Despite these extraordinary resources, 

LAMR lacks interpretive facilities to 

allow visitors to fully understand and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS