64716 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination as to the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) a date 

upon which such information might 

lose its confidential nature due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this NOPM. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25933 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[ED–2014–OESE–0134; CFDA Number: 

84.415A] 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

State Tribal Education Partnership 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for the 

State Tribal Education Partnership 

(STEP) program. The Assistant Secretary 

may use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for competitions in fiscal year 

(FY) 2015 and later years. We propose 

this action to enable tribal educational 

agencies (TEAs) to administer formula 

grant programs under the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA), and to improve the partnership 

between TEAs and the State educational 

agencies (SEAs) and local educational 

agencies (LEAs) that educate students 

from the affected tribe. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before December 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments submitted by fax or by email 

or those submitted after the comment 

period. To ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies, please submit your 

comments only once. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID 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 ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

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: 

Shahla Ortega, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 3E211, Washington, DC 20202– 

6450. Telephone: (202) 453–5602 or by 

email: shahla.ortega@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. 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 these 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 

program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about the proposed regulations by 

accessing Regulations.gov. You may also 

inspect the comments in person in room 

3E211, 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. If 

you want to schedule time to inspect 

comments, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

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. 

Purposes of Program: The purposes of 

this program are to: (1) Promote 

increased collaboration between TEAs 

and the SEAs and LEAs that serve 

students from the relevant tribes, in the 

administration of certain ESEA formula 

grant programs; and (2) build the 

capacity of TEAs to conduct certain 

administrative functions under those 

programs for eligible schools, as 

determined by the TEA, SEA, and LEA. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7451(a)(4). 

Background 

The FY 2012 appropriation for the 

Department of Education (the 

Department) included funding for a 

pilot program under the Indian 

Education (ESEA title VII) National 

Activities authority. Under the pilot, the 

Department awarded competitive grants 

to four TEAs to increase collaboration 

between TEAs and SEAs in the 

administration of certain ESEA Stateadministered formula grant programs, 

build TEA capacity to conduct State 

administrative functions under those 

programs for eligible schools located on 

reservations, increase the role of TEAs 

in the education of their children, and 

improve the academic achievement of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64717 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

students (see 77 FR 31592, May 29, 

2012). 

TEAs from a tribe with a reservation 

on which there was at least one public 

school were eligible to apply for the 

STEP pilot. Applicants were required to 

submit a preliminary agreement 

between the TEA and SEA that included 

a list of eligible participating schools 

and letters of support from participating 

LEAs, as well as a description of the 

programs, functions, and capacitybuilding activities to be included in the 

project. We then required grantees to 

submit a final agreement providing 

additional detailed information within 

nine months after the start of the first 

grant period. The four grantees all 

submitted the final agreement and 

received continuation awards for the 

second year and will receive 

continuation awards for the final year of 

their grant awards. 

For the STEP pilot competition, the 

Department waived notice-andcomment rulemaking because the 

competition was conducted under new 

program authority. Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553), the Department generally offers 

interested parties the opportunity to 

comment on proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. Section 437(d)(1) of the General 

Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 

however, allows the Secretary of 

Education to exempt from rulemaking 

requirements, regulations governing the 

first grant competition under a new 

program authority, and the STEP pilot 

competition qualified for this 

exemption. For the STEP pilot 

competition, we used the selection 

criteria in the Education Department 

General Administrative Regulations (34 

CFR 75.210). 

Tribal Consultation: On January 29 

and February 5, 2014, the Department 

solicited tribal input on the STEP 

program before starting the rulemaking 

process, pursuant to Executive Order 

13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Tribal members participated in person 

and by virtual media. A total of 89 tribal 

members participated, of whom 17 were 

tribal leaders. 

We sought input concerning the type 

and scope of functions that TEAs should 

assume under the grant program. Some 

participants favored continuing the 

STEP program’s focus on SEA-type 

activities while others supported a focus 

on LEA-type activities. Participants 

were generally interested in TEAs 

building capacity to provide a broader 

range of educational services for 

students than had initially been 

designed and implemented in the STEP 

pilot. 

Proposed Priorities: This notice 

contains two proposed priorities. 

Background 

We would like to minimize any 

competitive disadvantage that newly 

created TEAs and TEAs with relatively 

little experience operating education 

programs may have compared to FY 

2012 STEP grantees or established TEAs 

that have existing relationships with 

their LEAs or SEAs. 

In order to create more opportunities 

for newly established TEAs, we propose 

to establish separate priorities for 

established TEAs and TEAs with 

limited prior experience, to enable us to 

award grants to TEAs in each of these 

two categories. Because the purpose of 

the STEP grants is to build TEA 

capacity, we want to have the option of 

ensuring that grants do not go solely to 

TEAs with the most capacity and 

experience, and that less experienced 

TEAs are able to be competitive. On the 

other hand, we will ensure that when 

grants go to less experienced TEAs, that 

those grantees have the ability to carry 

out the grant, by using selection criteria 

designed to reward applicants with the 

requisite grant-management capacity 

and high-quality plan. We plan to make 

grants of four or five years’ duration. We 

learned from the pilot grants that three 

years is not sufficient for full 

implementation of the grantees’ plans. 

For any competition, we will announce 

the length of the grant period through a 

notice inviting applications published 

in the Federal Register. 

Proposed Priority 1—Established TEAs 

To meet this priority, a TEA must be 

an established TEA. 

Proposed Priority 2—TEAs With Limited 

Prior Experience 

To meet this priority, a TEA with 

limited prior experience is, for any 

STEP competition, a TEA that has not 

received a previous STEP grant, and 

does not meet the definition of an 

‘‘established TEA.’’ 

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)). 

Proposed Requirements 

Background 

In administering the STEP pilot, we 

learned valuable lessons that inform our 

proposed changes to the STEP program. 

Tribally Controlled Schools. During 

webinars with potential applicants and 

discussions with successful grantees, we 

learned that TEAs want the flexibility to 

include in their projects both public 

schools on their reservations and 

tribally controlled schools funded by 

the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) of 

the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Although we propose to provide that 

flexibility (see the discussion of the 

definition of ‘‘eligible school’’ under 

Proposed Definitions), we also propose, 

under Schools and Programs Included 

in Project, that projects must include at 

least one public school, in order to meet 

the original STEP program goal— 

enabling TEAs to gain experience in 

administering education programs in 

the public schools on their reservations. 

Applicants would be required to list the 

participating schools in the preliminary 

agreements that would be submitted 

with their applications. Some TEAs may 

currently play an important role in 

overseeing tribally controlled schools, 

which are tribal grant or contract 

schools funded by BIE. Therefore, we 

would also require the preliminary 

agreements to include an explanation of 

how the STEP funds will be used to 

supplement activities currently 

conducted by the tribe. 

For projects that would include one or 

more tribally controlled schools, we are 

proposing, under Schools and Programs 

Included in Project, that applicants be 

required to submit a copy of the 

application to BIE. This will allow the 

Department and BIE to consult as to 

whether the TEA will be required to 

enter into an agreement with BIE that 

details the respective responsibilities of 

each entity. We would require such an 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64718 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

agreement if the TEA proposes to 

conduct SEA-type activities with 

respect to the tribally controlled 

schools. For example, if the TEA 

proposes to monitor the schools for 

compliance with a State-administered 

ESEA formula grant program, such as 

title I, part A (Improving Academic 

Achievement of the Disadvantaged) or 

title II, part A (Improving Teacher 

Quality State Grants), we would require 

an agreement with BIE because that 

activity is normally conducted by BIE in 

its role as SEA with respect to those 

Department programs. 

Under the proposed requirements, a 

project that includes tribally controlled 

schools would not be required to enter 

into an agreement with BIE if the TEA 

proposes to assume only LEA-type 

functions with respect to BIE-funded 

schools. Such LEA-type functions 

include direct implementation of a grant 

or staff professional development. 

However, for all projects that include 

one or more tribally controlled schools, 

the TEA applicant must submit a copy 

of the application to BIE, to enable the 

appropriate determination to be made. If 

an agreement with BIE is required, the 

grantee would submit that agreement to 

the Department at the same time as the 

final agreement. If a required agreement 

with BIE is not reached, the TEA can 

omit the tribally controlled schools from 

the STEP grant and include in its final 

agreement, to be submitted in year one 

of the grant period, only the public 

schools on which the SEA, LEA, and 

TEA have agreed. If that occurs, the 

grantee would be required to submit a 

revised budget, and depending on the 

circumstances, we may reduce the grant 

award. Nothing in these requirements 

would prevent any TEA from entering a 

voluntary agreement with BIE regarding 

issues such as data-sharing, and any 

agreement required by the STEP grant 

need not be limited in time or scope to 

the STEP activities. 

Formula Grant Programs to be 

Included in STEP Projects. We also 

propose, based on feedback that we 

received, to expand the types of formula 

grant programs that can be included in 

STEP projects (see the discussion of the 

definition of ‘‘ESEA formula grant 

program’’ under Proposed Definitions). 

However, we propose a requirement, 

described under Schools and Programs 

Included in Project, that projects that 

include the ESEA title VII Indian 

education formula grants (which are 

direct grants to LEAs) as a focus of the 

STEP grant also include at least one 

State-administered ESEA formula grant 

program, in keeping with the purpose of 

the STEP program. 

LEA Commitment. We learned from 

administering the STEP pilot grants 

that, in order for projects to be 

successful, the cooperation of the LEA 

is essential, and a letter of support 

signed by the LEA, which was required 

as part of the STEP pilot application, is 

not always sufficient to ensure the 

LEA’s cooperation. Thus we propose, 

under the preliminary and final 

agreement requirements, that in 

addition to the TEA and SEA, the LEA 

or LEAs be required to sign both these 

agreements as well. In addition, if the 

project is to include BIE-funded tribally 

controlled schools, those schools would 

also need to sign the preliminary and 

final agreements. These schools are 

usually direct recipients of ED formula 

grant funds through BIE, and their 

cooperation is essential to the success of 

a project that includes such schools. 

Functions to be Performed by TEAs. 

During our analysis of proposed project 

budgets for the STEP pilot, we learned 

that some TEAs are interested in 

conducting LEA-type activities rather 

than SEA-type activities, as well as 

accessing LEA-type student 

performance data on students who are 

tribal members. Therefore, under the 

preliminary agreement requirements, we 

propose to permit TEAs the flexibility to 

perform either SEA-type functions or 

LEA-type functions, under the chosen 

ESEA program, as agreed upon by the 

parties. The parties could also agree that 

the TEA will perform SEA-type 

functions for a certain program (e.g., 

title I) or for certain schools (e.g., a 

public school on the reservation), and 

LEA-type functions for another program 

(e.g., title VII) or for other schools (e.g., 

a tribally controlled school). 

Student Data. In administering the 

STEP pilot grants, we learned that some 

TEAs are interested in obtaining data on 

tribal children attending public schools, 

and we received many questions 

concerning the privacy requirements of 

the Family Educational Rights and 

Privacy Act (FERPA) (section 444 of the 

General Education Provisions Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR part 99). FERPA 

generally prohibits the disclosure of 

personally identifiable information (PII) 

from a student’s education records 

without the prior written consent of the 

student’s parent. LEAs must comply 

with that requirement before disclosing 

PII from students’ education records to 

TEAs, unless an exception to the general 

consent requirement applies that would 

permit the disclosure. Likewise, SEAs 

are subject to the FERPA requirements 

concerning the re-disclosure of PII from 

students’ education records that they 

received from LEAs and schools in the 

State. An exception to FERPA’s general 

consent requirement permits LEAs or 

SEAs to designate an Indian tribe or 

TEA as its authorized representative to 

audit or evaluate Federal or Statesupported education programs, under 

the conditions set forth in the 

Department’s regulations. See 34 CFR 

99.3, 99.31(a)(3), 99.35. In addition, 

SEAs and LEAs may share with TEAs 

any records that have been properly deidentified, in which all PII has been 

removed. See 34 CFR 99.3 and 

99.31(b)(1). Applicants are encouraged 

to review information and guidance 

regarding FERPA on the Family Policy 

Compliance Office’s Web site at: http:// 

www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/

index.html. The proposed requirements 

for the preliminary agreement include a 

description of how the parties will 

comply with FERPA, if they propose 

that the TEA will have access to PII 

from student education records. 

Final Agreement Requirements. We 

learned during the first year of the STEP 

pilot that the requirements for 

developing a final agreement were too 

prescriptive and, in some cases, 

redundant. The final agreement is 

crucial to a STEP project’s success, and 

if the TEA is unable to submit a final 

agreement by the Departmentestablished deadline, it will not receive 

a continuation award under its grant. 

Therefore, we propose to streamline 

some of the elements for both the 

preliminary and final agreements to 

make them more practicable. 

Proposed Requirements 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

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. 

Eligible Applicant: (a) A TEA that is 

from an eligible Indian tribe and 

authorized by its tribe to administer this 

program; or (b) a consortium of such 

TEAs. 

Schools and Programs Included in 

Project 

(a) Schools. (1) Projects must include 

at least two eligible schools, at least one 

of which must be a public school. 

(2) All schools included in the project 

must receive services or funds for the 

specific ESEA formula grant program(s) 

selected by the applicant. 

(3) For projects that include one or 

more tribally controlled schools— 

(i) The applicant TEA must include in 

its application evidence that it 

submitted a copy of the application to 

BIE; and 

(ii) If the proposed project includes 

SEA-type functions with regard to the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64719 

tribally controlled school, the TEA may 

be required to enter into an agreement 

with BIE, to be submitted to the 

Department at the same time as the final 

agreement. 

(b) ESEA Formula Grant Programs. 

Projects must include at least one ESEA 

formula grant program that is Stateadministered. 

Preliminary Agreement: An applicant 

must submit with its application for 

funding a signed preliminary agreement 

among the TEA, SEA, and LEA. Letters 

of support from an SEA or LEA will not 

meet this requirement and will not be 

accepted as a substitute. 

The preliminary agreement must 

include: 

(a) An explanation of how the parties 

will work collaboratively to administer 

selected ESEA formula grant programs 

in eligible schools; 

(b) The primary ESEA formula grant 

program(s) for which the TEA will 

assume SEA-type or LEA-type 

administrative functions; 

(c) A description of the primary SEAtype or LEA-type administrative 

functions that the TEA will assume; 

(d) The training and other activities 

that the SEA or LEA, as appropriate, 

will provide for the TEA to gain the 

knowledge and skills needed to 

administer ESEA formula programs; 

(e) The assistance that the TEA will 

provide to the SEA or LEA, as 

appropriate, to facilitate the project, 

such as cultural competence training; 

(f) The names of at least one LEA and 

two or more eligible schools, at least one 

of which must be a public school, that 

are expected to participate in the 

project; 

(g) An explanation of how the STEP 

funds will be used to build on existing 

activities or add new activities rather 

than replacing tribal or other funds; 

(h) If the parties agree that the TEA 

will have access to PII from student 

education records, how the parties will 

comply with the requirements of section 

444 of the General Education Provisions 

Act (commonly referred to as the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act); 

and 

(i) Signatures of the authorized 

representatives of the TEA, SEA, 

participating LEA(s), and any BIEfunded tribally controlled school that is 

included in the project. 

Final Agreement: Each grantee must 

submit to the Department a final 

agreement by the date, in year one of the 

grant, to be established by the 

Department in the notice inviting 

applications. The final agreement must 

contain: 

(a) All of the elements from the 

preliminary agreement, in final form; 

(b) A timetable for accomplishing 

each of the objectives and activities that 

the parties will undertake; 

(c) Goals of the project and 

measureable objectives towards 

reaching the goals; and 

(d) The actions that the parties will 

take to sustain the relationships 

established in the agreement after the 

project ends. 

Proposed Definitions 

Background 

We learned from the STEP pilot 

competition that some TEAs were 

ineligible for a grant because, although 

tribal students attended a public school, 

that public school was not on the 

reservation. To enable more TEAs to be 

eligible, we propose to expand the 

definition of ‘‘eligible schools’’ from the 

definition used in the STEP pilot. 

Specifically, we propose to permit the 

parties signing the preliminary 

agreement to include any public 

schools, either on, or off, the 

reservation. In making this decision, we 

expect that the TEA, SEA, and LEA will 

consider such factors as the proximity of 

the school to the reservation and the 

number of students from the TEA’s tribe 

attending the school. Given the variety 

in the eligible applicants’ circumstances 

and geographic areas, we do not believe 

that it would be helpful for the 

Department to prescribe the factors to 

use in determining what would be 

considered an eligible school. The 

parties must, however, agree on and 

identify in the preliminary agreement 

the schools to be included in the 

project. For schools that have students 

from multiple tribes, we would expect 

that a TEA planning a STEP application 

would first consult with the other 

relevant tribes. 

We also learned from administering 

the STEP pilot grants that some TEAs 

want to coordinate better with the LEA 

to assist with tribal students’ transfers 

between public schools and tribally 

operated schools, or to coordinate 

curricula and instructional practices 

among such schools. We propose 

expanding the definition of ‘‘eligible 

schools’’ to permit applicants to include 

in their projects not only public schools 

but also BIE-funded tribally controlled 

schools. By including BIE-funded 

tribally controlled schools, the STEP 

grants can help TEAs to be better 

prepared to assist and monitor the 

tribe’s students to help those students 

succeed academically and graduate from 

high school. The STEP project would be 

required to include only schools that 

receive funding under the selected 

ESEA programs, regardless of whether 

the schools are public or tribally 

controlled (see Requirements, Schools, 

and Programs Included in Project). 

In addition, we learned from the STEP 

pilot that many TEAs are interested in 

administering the title VII Indian 

Education formula grants in the local 

public school or schools. These are 

ESEA formula grants that we make 

directly to LEAs. Therefore, to allow 

this flexibility, we are including in the 

definition of ‘‘ESEA formula grant 

program’’ the title VII Indian Education 

formula grant program. The LEA 

participating in the STEP project would 

remain the title VII grantee, just as 

currently the SEA remains the grantee 

for the State-administered programs, but 

the LEA and TEA could agree that the 

TEA will take on certain administrative 

functions for the title VII grant (such as 

planning policy and objectives and 

oversight of schools’ compliance with 

requirements relating to the use of 

program funds). 

The other definitions are generally the 

same as those that were used in the 

2012 pilot program competition, with 

the exception of the new definition of 

‘‘established TEA,’’ which is explained 

under Proposed Priorities above. 

Proposed Definitions 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes the following definitions for 

this program. We may apply one or 

more of these definitions in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

Cultural competency means the use of 

culturally responsive education that 

takes into account a student’s own 

cultural experiences, creates 

connections between home and school 

experiences, and uses the cultural 

knowledge, prior experiences, and 

learning styles of diverse students to 

make learning more appropriate and 

effective. 

Eligible Indian tribe means a federally 

recognized or a State-recognized tribe. 

Eligible school means a school that is 

included in the applicant’s preliminary 

and final agreements, and that is: 

(a) A public school, including a 

public charter school, or 

(b) A BIE-funded tribally controlled 

school. 

Established TEA means a TEA that 

previously received a STEP grant, or 

that meets one or more of the following 

criteria, as specified by the Secretary in 

a notice inviting applications published 

in the Federal Register: 

(a) Has an existing relationship with 

an SEA or LEA as evidenced by a 

written agreement between the TEA and 

SEA or LEA; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64720 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(b) Has an existing tribal education 

code; 

(c) Has administered at least one 

education program (for example, a 

tribally operated preschool or 

afterschool program) within the past 

five years; 

(d) Has administered at least one 

Federal, State, local, or private grant 

within the past five years. 

Note: For each competition, the Secretary 

will publish in the Federal Register the 

minimum number of criteria from this list 

(such as three out of four), or the specific 

criteria from this list that an established TEA 

must meet. 

ESEA formula grant program means 

one of the following programs 

authorized under the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), for which States or 

LEAs receive formula funding: 

(a) Improving Academic Achievement 

of the Disadvantaged ((title I, part A); 

(b) School Improvement Grants 

(Section 1003(g)); 

(c) Migrant Education (title I, part C); 

(d) Neglected and Delinquent State 

Grants (title I, part D); 

(e) Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants (title II, part A); 

(f) English Learner Education State 

Grants (title III, part A); 

(g) 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers (title IV, part B); and 

(h) Indian Education Formula Grants 

(title VII, part A). 

LEA-type function means the type of 

activities that LEAs typically conduct, 

such as direct provision of educational 

services to students, grant 

implementation, school district 

curriculum development and staff 

professional development pursuant to 

State guidelines, and data submissions. 

SEA-type function means the type of 

activities that SEAs typically conduct, 

such as overall education policy 

development, supervision and 

monitoring of school districts, provision 

of technical assistance to districts, 

statewide curriculum development, 

collecting and analyzing performance 

data, and evaluating programs. 

Tribal educational agency (TEA) 

means the agency, department, or 

instrumentality of an eligible Indian 

tribe that is primarily responsible for 

supporting tribal students’ elementary 

and secondary education, which may 

include early learning. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

Background 

The Department intends that the 

selection criteria used for competitions 

for STEP funds will ensure that STEP 

projects address the most critical needs 

of TEAs, SEAs, and LEAs in providing 

education for Indian youth. 

The Department also expects that 

these selection criteria will help ensure 

that any projects that are funded under 

this program will be of high technical 

quality. Therefore, we are proposing 

specific factors that are unique to this 

program among the following selection 

criteria: Need for project; quality of 

project design; adequacy of resources; 

and quality of project personnel. We 

believe that these proposed selection 

criteria would help us better select 

applications for funding and improve 

the STEP program. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

proposes the following selection criteria 

for evaluating an application under this 

program. In any year in which this 

program is in effect, we may apply one 

or more of these criteria or sub-criteria, 

any of the selection criteria in 34 CFR 

75.210, or any combination of these. In 

the notice inviting applications or the 

application package or both, we will 

announce the maximum possible points 

assigned to each criterion. 

(a) Need for project. The Assistant 

Secretary considers the extent to which 

the goals and objectives in the 

preliminary agreement, including the 

TEA capacity-building activities, 

address identified educational needs of 

the Indian students to be served. 

(b) Quality of the project design. The 

Assistant Secretary considers one or 

more of the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project would recognize and support 

tribal sovereignty. 

(2) The extent to which the 

preliminary agreement defines goals, 

objectives, and outcomes of the 

proposed project that are likely to be 

achieved by the end of the project 

period. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

project would build relationships and 

better communication among the TEA, 

SEA, and LEA, as well as families and 

communities, to the benefit of Indian 

students in the selected schools, 

including by enhancing the cultural 

competency of SEA and LEA staff. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project would enhance the capacity of 

the TEA to administer ESEA formula 

grants during the grant period and 

beyond. 

(c) Adequacy of resources. The 

Assistant Secretary considers the extent 

to which: 

(1) The TEA has established, prior to 

developing the preliminary agreement, a 

relationship with either the SEA or an 

LEA that will enhance the likelihood of 

the project’s success; and 

(2) The use of STEP grant funds, as 

described in the proposed budget, 

supports the capacity-building activities 

that are needed to administer ESEA 

formula grants. 

(d) Quality of project personnel. The 

Assistant Secretary considers the extent 

to which the proposed project director 

has experience in education and in 

administering Federal grants. 

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 one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, we will 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64721 

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 

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, definitions, and 

selection criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their 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. 

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. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. We believe that 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

not impose significant costs on eligible 

TEAs that receive assistance through the 

STEP program. We also believe that the 

benefits of implementing the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria outweigh any 

associated costs. 

We believe that the costs imposed on 

applicants would be limited to costs 

associated with developing 

applications, including developing 

partnerships with SEAs and LEAs, and 

that the benefits of creating a 

partnership that is likely to be sustained 

after the end of the project period would 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. The costs of carrying out 

activities proposed in STEP applications 

would be paid for with program funds. 

Thus, the costs of implementation 

would not be a burden for any eligible 

applicants, including small entities. We 

also note that program participation is 

voluntary. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79, except that federally recognized 

Indian tribes are not subject to those 

rules. 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: October 28, 2014. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25968 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2014–0366; FRL–9918– 

55–Region–6] 

Arkansas: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) 

ACTION: Proposed rule 

SUMMARY: The State of Arkansas has 

applied to EPA for Final authorization 

of the changes to its hazardous waste 

program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

EPA proposes to grant Final 

authorization to the State of Arkansas. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of this Federal Register, EPA is 

authorizing the changes by an 

immediate final rule. EPA did not make 

a proposal prior to the direct final rule 

because we believe this action is not 

controversial and do not expect 

comments that oppose it. We have 

explained the reasons for this 

authorization in the preamble to the 

direct final rule. Unless we get written 

comments which oppose this 

authorization during the comment 

period, the direct final rule will become 

effective on the date it establishes, and 

we will not take further action on this 

proposal. If we receive comments that 

oppose this action, we will withdraw 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS