Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 39613 

vessels who have been authorized to act 

on the behalf of the Captain of the Port. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit 

through or anchoring within this safety 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port of San Diego or 

his designated representative. 

(2) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative. 

(3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other federal, state, or local agencies. 

Dated: June 21, 2013. 

S.M. Mahoney, 

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

Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15828 Filed 7–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Part 690 

[Docket ID ED–2012–OPE–0006] 

RIN 1840–AD11 

Federal Pell Grant Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary adopts as final, 

without change, the interim final rule 

published on May 2, 2012, that 

amended regulations for the Federal Pell 

Grant program, to prohibit a student 

from receiving two consecutive Federal 

Pell Grants in a single award year. The 

final amendments implement provisions 

of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

(HEA), as amended by the Department 

of Defense and Full-Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2011. 

DATES: Effective July 2, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacquelyn C. Butler, U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Postsecondary 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

8053, Washington, DC 20006–8542. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7890. 

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. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 2, 

2012, the Secretary published an 

interim final rule in the Federal 

Register (77 FR 25893), corrected on 

July 11, 2012 (77 FR 40805), 

implementing provisions of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as 

amended by the Department of Defense 

and Full-Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2011, Public Law 

112–10, § 1860(a)(2), 125 Stat. 169–70 

(2011). 

In the interim final rule, the 

Secretary— 

• Delineated the conditions for 

calculating a Federal Pell Grant for a 

payment period (77 FR 25894); 

• Removed the provision for 

awarding Federal Pell Grant payments 

from two Scheduled Awards (77 FR 

25894); 

• Specified when an institution may 

assign a crossover payment period that 

occurs over two award years (77 FR 

25894); 

• Specified when an institution may 

pay a transfer student attending more 

than one institution during an award 

year (77 FR 25894); and 

• Removed regulations that 

established procedures for awarding a 

student his or her second Scheduled 

Award in an award year (77 FR 25895). 

The interim final rule was effective on 

the date of publication, May 2, 2012, 

and the Secretary requested public 

comment on whether changes to the 

regulations were warranted. 

Additionally, the interim final rule was 

corrected on July 11, 2012 (77 FR 

40805). After considering all comments, 

the Secretary adopts the interim final 

rule without change. This document 

contains a discussion of the comments 

we received. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

In response to the Secretary’s 

invitation, 10 parties submitted 

comments on the interim final rule. 

An analysis of the comments received 

since publication of the interim final 

rule follows. We group major issues 

according to subject, with appropriate 

sections of the regulations referenced in 

parentheses. Generally, we do not 

address technical and other minor 

changes—and suggested changes the 

law does not authorize the Secretary to 

make. 

General Comments 

Comments: Several commenters 

expressed support for the regulatory 

changes in the interim final rule. One 

commenter objected to the Secretary’s 

decision to waive rulemaking. The 

commenter noted that the public should 

have the opportunity to comment on 

proposed regulations through a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

Discussion: The Secretary appreciates 

the commenters’ support. We disagree 

with the comment that these regulations 

should have been submitted to the 

public as proposed regulations for 

notice and comment. As we discussed 

in the interim final rule, under the 

Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed 

Effective Date section, the Department 

generally offers interested parties the 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

regulations in accordance with the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553). However, the APA provides 

that an agency is not required to 

conduct notice and comment 

rulemaking when the agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure thereon are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). The 

Secretary determined that there was 

good cause to waive rulemaking under 

the APA because the statutory change to 

prohibit a student from receiving two 

Federal Pell Grants in a single award 

year would have resulted in some 

students losing their Federal Pell Grant 

eligibility if we delayed making the 

regulatory change to amend § 690.64 (77 

FR 25897). Notice and comment to 

amend §§ 690.63, 690.65, and 690.67 

was unnecessary because we merely 

updated these sections to reflect 

statutory changes in Public Law 112–10 

that prohibit a student from receiving 

two Federal Pell Grants in a single 

award year. 

Changes: None. 

Payment Period in Two Award Years 

(§ 690.64) 

Comments: One commenter asked if, 

for a crossover payment period, more 

than six months of a payment period 

occurs in an award year, must the 

Federal Pell Grant award be made from 

that award year. Another commenter 

thanked the Department for the 

regulatory change under § 690.64(a) and 

(b), noting that the change would allow 

an institution to comply with the 

regulations governing the standards of 

administrative capability under 34 CFR 

668.16 when awarding a Federal Pell 

Grant. 

Discussion: In August 2008, the 

Higher Education Opportunity Act 

(HEOA), Public Law 110–315, added 

section 401(b)(5) to the HEA, and 

allowed an eligible student to receive 

two Federal Pell Grant Scheduled 

Awards during a single award year. 

Before then, institutions were required 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
39614 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

to assign a payment period that crossed 

over two award years to the award year 

where more than six months were 

scheduled to occur. With the removal of 

the two Pell provision from the statute, 

we did not revert back to the pre-HEOA 

regulations. Instead, the interim final 

rule amended § 690.64(a)(2) to provide 

that an institution must determine for 

each Federal Pell Grant recipient the 

award year in which the payment 

period will be placed, giving 

institutions the ability to assign a 

crossover payment period in a way that 

best meets the needs of its students. 

The Secretary agrees with the 

commenter about the effect of 

§ 690.64(a) and (b). 

Changes: None. 

Transfer Student: Attendance at More 

Than One Institution During an Award 

Year (§ 690.65(c) and (f)) 

Comments: One commenter requested 

confirmation on whether the regulations 

apply to the annual Scheduled Award 

amount or the amount of the Pell Grant 

Lifetime Eligibility Used. This 

commenter also questioned whether a 

transfer student is required to repay the 

Federal Pell Grant funds that exceeded 

his or her Scheduled Federal Pell Grant 

for the award year. Two commenters 

were concerned that the change to these 

regulations would negatively affect 

transfer students. One commenter noted 

that students who transfer mid-year to a 

different school would be harmed by 

these regulations. 

Discussion: The term used throughout 

the Federal Pell Grant program 

regulations is ‘‘Scheduled Federal Pell 

Grant’’ which is the amount of a Federal 

Pell Grant that is paid to a full-time 

student for a full academic year. In other 

publications, e.g., the Federal Student 

Aid Handbook, we use the term 

‘‘Scheduled Award’’ which has the 

same meaning as ‘‘Scheduled Federal 

Pell Grant.’’ The term ‘‘Pell Grant 

Lifetime Eligibility Used’’ is the total of 

each award year’s percentage of the 

student’s Scheduled Award that was 

disbursed for the student. The Pell 

Grant Lifetime Eligibility Used is 

required to comply with the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2012 (Pub. L. 112–74). The law included 

a provision that limits a student’s 

eligibility for Federal Pell Grant funds to 

a maximum of 12 semesters (or its 

equivalent). 

Because the maximum amount of a 

Scheduled Federal Pell Grant award a 

student can receive each year is equal to 

100 percent, a student’s Pell Grant 

Lifetime Eligibility Used must not 

exceed six years or a total of six 

Scheduled Federal Pell Grants (600 

percent). 

Section 690.79 provides that a student 

is liable for any Federal Pell Grant 

overpayment made to him or her, except 

if the overpayment occurred because the 

institution failed to follow the 

procedures in the Federal Pell Grant 

program regulations or the Student 

Assistance General Provisions 

regulations under 34 CFR part 668, in 

which case, the institution would be 

liable. A student is not liable for, and 

the institution is not required to attempt 

recovery of or refer to the Secretary, a 

Federal Pell Grant overpayment if the 

amount of the overpayment is less than 

$25 and is not a remaining balance. 

A student who receives a Federal Pell 

Grant at one institution and then 

subsequently transfers to a second 

institution in the same award year may 

receive a Federal Pell Grant at the 

second institution for that portion of the 

award year in which the student is 

enrolled and has remaining Federal Pell 

Grant eligibility at that institution that 

does not exceed the student’s Scheduled 

Award. 

Although the commenter is correct 

that a transfer student may be negatively 

affected, e.g., the student will receive 

only the remaining portion of his or her 

Scheduled Federal Pell Grant award 

rather than a full Scheduled Federal Pell 

Grant award at the second institution, 

the change in the law prohibits a 

student from receiving more than one 

Scheduled Federal Pell Grant award 

during a single award year. 

Changes: None. 

Receiving Up to Two Scheduled 

Awards During a Single Award Year 

(§ 690.67) 

Comments: Four commenters opposed 

the removal of the provision that allows 

an otherwise eligible student to receive 

a second Federal Pell Grant Scheduled 

Award in an award year. One 

commenter noted that with the 

reduction in Federal Pell Grant funds, 

students will be limited by the number 

of classes they may register for, and this 

may discourage accelerated program 

completion. Other commenters opined 

that without the additional Federal Pell 

Grant funds, students will be forced to 

incur more loan debt in order to 

complete their postsecondary education. 

Discussion: Section 1860(a)(2) of 

division B of the Department of Defense 

and Full-Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 

112–10), repealed section 401(b)(5) of 

the HEA under which an otherwise 

eligible student could receive more than 

one Federal Pell Grant in an award year. 

While we understand the commenters’ 

concerns, the Secretary does not have 

the authority to change statutory 

requirements. 

Changes: None. 

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. 

The statutory elimination of the two 

Pell Grant option as reflected in this 

regulatory action is economically 

significant and subject to review by 

OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed these 

regulations under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other 

things, and to the extent 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 39615 

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 adopting this interim rule as 

final without change only after a 

reasoned determination that its benefits 

justify its costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis presented in the interim final 

rule, the Department believes that these 

regulations are 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 the Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. We discussed the 

potential costs and benefits of these 

regulations in the interim final rule. (77 

FR 25895). 

Waiver of Delayed Effective Dates 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that 

regulations be published at least 30 days 

before their effective date, unless the 

agency has good cause to implement its 

regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). 

In addition, these final regulations are a 

major rule for purposes of the 

Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally, under the 

CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days 

after the date on which the rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Section 808(2) of the CRA, however, 

provides that any rule which an agency 

for good cause finds (and incorporates 

the finding and a brief statement of 

reasons therefore in the rule issued) that 

notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, shall take effect at 

such time as the Federal agency 

promulgating the rule determines. 

As stated in detail in the interim final 

rule, 77 FR 25897 (May 2, 2012), 

because these final regulations merely 

reflect statutory changes and remove 

obsolete regulatory provisions and, in 

the case of § 690.64, protect students 

from receiving reduced amounts of Pell 

Grant funds, there is good cause to 

waive the delayed effective dates under 

the APA and the CRA and make these 

final regulations effective on the day 

they are published. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

These final regulations affect 

institutions that participate in title IV, 

HEA programs, and individual Pell 

Grant recipients. The effect of the 

elimination of two Pell Grants in one 

year will depend on the extent students 

replace the funds from other sources or 

change their academic plans, the 

distribution of recipients of a second 

Pell Grant, and the alternative use of the 

funds. This Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis presents an estimate of the 

effect on small institutions of the 

statutory changes implemented through 

these final regulations. In the interim 

final rule, the Department welcomed 

comments about the estimates of the 

costs and benefits of the changes 

implemented in these final regulations. 

While some commenters questioned the 

benefits of Pell Grants or the effect of 

the changes on transfer students, no 

comments were received about the 

specific estimates of the effect on small 

entities presented in the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (77 FR 

25895–25897). 

Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, 

and Legal Basis for, These Final 

Regulations 

These final regulations remove 

regulatory provisions related to the 

availability of two Pell Grants in one 

year to comply with section 1860(a)(2) 

of division B of the Department of 

Defense and Full-Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112– 

10), which repealed section 401(b)(5) of 

the HEA under which an otherwise 

eligible student could receive more than 

one Federal Pell Grant in an award year. 

Description of and, Where Feasible, an 

Estimate of the Number of Small 

Entities to Which These Final 

Regulations Will Apply 

These final regulations affect 

institutions that participate in title IV, 

HEA programs and loan borrowers. The 

definition of ‘‘small entity’’ in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act encompasses 

‘‘small businesses,’’ ‘‘small 

organizations,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ The 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ comes 

from the definition of ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under section 3 of the Small 

Business Act as well as regulations 

issued by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA). The SBA defines 

a ‘‘small business concern’’ as one that 

is ‘‘organized for profit; has a place of 

business in the U.S.; operates primarily 

within the U.S. or makes a significant 

contribution to the U.S. economy 

through payment of taxes or use of 

American products, materials or labor 

. . . .’’ ‘‘Small organizations’’ are 

further defined as any ‘‘not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and not dominant in its 

field.’’ The definition of ‘‘small entity’’ 

also includes ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdictions,’’ which includes ‘‘school 

districts with a population less than 

50,000.’’ 

Data from the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System 

(IPEDS) indicate that roughly 3,448 

institutions representing approximately 

63 percent of those institutions 

participating in the Federal student 

assistance programs meet the definition 

of ‘‘small entities’’ when all private 

nonprofit institutions are classified as 

small because none is dominant in the 

field. If the $7 million in revenue 

requirement were applied to private 

nonprofit institutions, the number of 

small entities would be reduced to 2,386 

or 43.6 percent of institutions. Table 2 

summarizes small institutions and their 

percent of AY 2008–2009 Pell Grant 

recipients and amounts by sector. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
39616 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—AY 2008–2009 PELL GRANT RECIPIENTS AND AMOUNTS BY SECTOR

Small institutions 

Percent of 

Pell Grant 

recipients 

$ 

(percent) Recipients No. 

Percent of 

sector 

recipients 

Public 4-year .................................................................................................... 4 0.7 0.0 0.0 

Private nonprofit 4-year* .................................................................................. 444 30.0 5.6 5.9 

Private for-profit 4-year .................................................................................... 52 24.6 1.0 1.0 

Public 2-year .................................................................................................... 88 8.5 0.8 0.7

Private nonprofit 2-year* .................................................................................. 147 86.5 54.6 53.3 

Private for-profit 2-year .................................................................................... 405 69.6 21.1 21.5

Public <2-year .................................................................................................. 202 87.4 62.6 61.6 

Private nonprofit <2-year* ................................................................................ 61 93.8 51.4 51.1 

Private for-profit <2-year .................................................................................. 983 89.4 44.5 44.4 

Source: IPEDS 2008–2009. 

* Applies $7 million revenue standard to private nonprofit institutions for informational purposes. If not applied, the number of institutions in the 

private nonprofit sectors would be 1,479 four-year, 170 two-year, and 65 less-than-two-year institutions. All Pell Grant recipients and Pell Grant 

disbursements in the private nonprofit sectors would be small entities. 

Using the distribution of Pell Grant 

recipients and amounts at small 

institutions from Table 2 and the 

Department’s estimated two Pell Grant 

recipients and amounts, the estimated 

maximum cost to small institutions 

across all sectors for the period from 

2011–2012 to 2015–2016 is 

approximately $1.67 billion. The 

estimated recipients and amounts by 

type of institution are summarized in 

Table 3. The amount of grant aid lost for 

any individual institution will depend 

on the extent the second Pell Grant 

option was utilized at that school. If 

distributed evenly across all small 

entities, with nonprofit institutions 

subject to the $7 million revenue 

requirement for a more uniform profile 

of institutions, an annual average of 

$150,000 would not be available from 

second Pell Grants in one award year. 

As discussed in the Summary of 

Potential Cost and Benefits section of 

the interim final rule, much of this 

revenue will be available from other 

sources including the preservation of 

the maximum grant level in the Pell 

Grant Program, student earnings or 

savings, and increased student debt. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED PELL GRANT RECIPIENTS AND AMOUNTS AT SMALL INSTITUTIONS

Estimated Pell Grant recipients at small institutions 

AY 2011–12 AY 2012–13 AY 2013–14 AY 2014–15 AY 2015–16 

Public 2 yr ............................................................................ 4,060 4,963 4,997 5,123 5,256 

Public 4 yr ............................................................................ 143 175 176 181 185 

Private .................................................................................. 18,152 22,190 22,342 22,904 23,501 

Proprietary ............................................................................ 78,907 96,459 97,120 99,562 102,157 

Total .............................................................................. 101,263 123,787 124,636 127,770 131,100 

Estimated Pell Grant amounts in millions at small institutions 

AY 2011–12 AY 2012–13 AY 2013–14 AY 2014–15 AY 2015–16 

Public 2 yr ............................................................................ 10.6 13.0 13.3 13.8 14.5 

Public 4 yr ............................................................................ 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Private .................................................................................. 43.9 53.8 55.1 57.3 59.9 

Proprietary ............................................................................ 215.7 264.4 270.8 282.0 294.6 

Total ..................................................................................... 270.5 331.6 339.6 353.7 369.4 

Source: IPEDS 2008–2009 and Department of Education estimates. 

Description of the Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements of These Final 

Regulations, Including an Estimate of 

the Classes of Small Entities That Will 

Be Subject to the Requirement and the 

Type of Professional Skills Necessary 

For Preparation of the Report or Record 

These final regulations do not impose 

any new reporting, record keeping, or 

other compliance requirements on 

institutions. 

Identification, to the Extent Practicable, 

of All Relevant Federal Regulations 

That May Duplicate, Overlap, or 

Conflict With These Final Regulations 

These final regulations are unlikely to 

conflict with or duplicate existing 

Federal regulations. 

Alternatives Considered 

No alternatives were considered for 

the amendments to §§ 690.63(g)(1), 

690.63(h), 690.65(c), 690.65(f), and 

690.67 because these changes 

implement changes to the HEA enacted 

by Congress and the Department did not 

exercise discretion in developing these 

amendments. With respect to § 690.64, 

the Department could have left the 

current regulations in place. However, 

such an action would have led to 

potentially serious adverse effects on 

students, as described in the Waiver of 

Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 39617 

section of the preamble in the interim 

final rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These final regulations do not create 

any information collection 

requirements. With the removal of 

§§ 690.63(h) and 690.67 and the revision 

of § 690.64, due to the statutory changes, 

the paperwork burden associated with 

those sections are also removed. This 

change results in the discontinuation of 

information collection 1845–0098 and, 

therefore, the elimination of 109,605 

burden hours associated with that 

collection. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is not subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

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. 

You may also view this document in 

text or PDF at the following site: 

www.ifap.ed.gov. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number: 84.063 Federal Pell Grants) 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 690 

Colleges and universities, Elementary 

and secondary education, Grant 

programs-education, Student aid. 

Dated: June 26, 2013. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the interim final rule that 

amended 34 CFR part 690, published at 

77 FR 25893 on May 2, 2012, is adopted 

as final without change. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15709 Filed 7–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 51, 53, 63, and 64 

[CC Docket Nos. 95–20, 98–10, WC Docket 

No. 10–132; FCC 13–69] 

Data Practices, Computer III Further 

Remand: BOC Provision of Enhanced 

Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Report and Order 

eliminates comparably efficient 

interconnection (CEI) and open network 

architecture (ONA) narrowband 

reporting requirements applicable to the 

Bell Operating Companies (BOCs). 

These requirements have been in place 

to monitor the BOCs’ compliance with 

access and interconnection services that 

they must offer to competitive enhanced 

service providers (ESPs). The 

Commission no longer relies on the 

reports in the course of its decision 

making, and there is nothing in the 

record indicating that the reports 

contain information that is useful to 

ESPs. Eliminating them will improve 

the way the Commission collects, uses, 

and disseminates data, including by 

altering or eliminating collections that 

are no longer useful or necessary to 

carry out our statutory responsibilities. 

DATES: Effective August 1, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jodie May, WCB, CPD, (202) 418–1580 

or Jodie.May@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this 

Report and Order, we permanently 

eliminate annual, semi-annual, 

quarterly, and non-discrimination 

reporting requirements applicable to the 

BOCs’ narrowband CEI and ONA 

services. The Commission implemented 

these reporting requirements under its 

Computer III framework to monitor the 

BOCs’ compliance with the obligation to 

provide non-discriminatory access to 

basic network services for unaffiliated 

ESPs. In August 2011, the Commission 

Bureau waived the reporting 

requirements pending resolution of the 

issues in the Report and Order. The 

Report and Order furthers the 

Commission’s efforts to modernize 

agency data collections and reduce 

reporting burdens where appropriate 

and consistent with the public interest. 

I. Background 

1. On February 8, 2011, in a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (CEI/ONA 

Notice), the Commission proposed 

eliminating the legacy CEI/ONA 

narrowband reporting requirements 

required under the Computer III 

safeguards ‘‘due to a lack of continuing 

relevance and utility.’’ 76 FR 11407–01 

(Mar 2, 2011). The CEI/ONA Notice 

stated that the Commission does not 

rely on any of the submissions in the 

course of its decision making. On 

August 11, 2011, the Bureau granted on 

its own motion a waiver of the CEI/ONA 

narrowband reporting requirements 

pending resolution of the CEI/ONA 

Notice. The Bureau stated that, while it 

did not prejudge the outcome of the 

rulemaking, the record suggested that 

the reports are of limited utility and did 

not justify the burden and expense of 

preparing them. Review of Wireline 

Competition Bureau Data Practices, 

Computer III Further Remand 

Proceedings: Bell Operating Company 

Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998 

Biennial Regulatory Review—Review of 

Computer III and ONA Safeguards and 

Requirements, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 10–132, CC 

Docket Nos. 95–20, 98–10, 26 FCC Rcd 

11280, 11280–81, para. 3 (2011). No 

commenter to the CEI/ONA Notice 

supported retaining the reporting 

requirements. 

2. The CEI/ONA Notice sought 

comment on eliminating the BOCs’ 

annual, semi-annual, quarterly, and 

non-discrimination reporting 

requirements. Prior to the waiver 

described above, the BOCs filed annual 

reports containing projected 

deployment schedules for ONA services 

by type of service and percentage of 

access lines and by market area; 

disposition of individual requests for 

ONA services, including action on 

requests deemed technically infeasible; 

information about ONA services that 

were offered through technologies that 

were new at the time the Commission 

adopted the requirements, such as 

Signaling System 7 and Integrated 

Services Digital Network systems; 

information about operations support 

services and billing; and extensive lists 

of services that the BOC used for its own 

enhanced services operations. The BOCs 

were also required to file semi-annual 

reports containing a consolidated 

nationwide matrix of ONA services and 

corresponding state and federal tariff 

descriptions, computer diskettes and 

printouts of all tariffs, information on 

118 categories of network capabilities 

requested by ESPs, and the BOC’s ‘‘ONA 

Services User Guide,’’ all on paper and 

diskette. They filed non-discrimination 

reports or affidavits, most on a quarterly 

basis, that published intervals for 

installation, repair dates, trouble 

reports, and timelines for BOC 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES