34428 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–0393] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Eighth Coast Guard District Annual 

Safety Zones; Guyasuta Days Festival; 

Allegheny River Mile 5.7 to 6.0; 

Pittsburgh, PA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of Enforcement of 

Regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

a safety zone for the Guyasuta Days 

Festival Fireworks on the Allegheny 

River, from mile 5.7 to 6.0, extending 

200 feet from the right descending bank. 

This zone will be in effect on August 9, 

2014 from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. 

This zone is needed to protect vessels 

transiting the area and event spectators 

from the hazards associated with the 

Guyasuta Days Festival Land-based 

Fireworks. During the enforcement 

period, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring in the safety zone is 

prohibited to all vessels not registered 

with the sponsor as participants or 

official patrol vessels, unless 

specifically authorized by the Captain of 

the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a 

designated representative. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

165.801 will be enforced with actual 

notice on August 9, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this document of 

enforcement, call or email Ronald 

Lipscomb, Marine Safety Unit 

Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at 

telephone (412) 644–5808, email 

Ronald.c.lipscomb1@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Coast Guard will enforce the 

Safety Zone for the annual Guyasuta 

Days Festival Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 

165.801 Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector 

Ohio Valley, No. 28. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.801, entry into the safety zone listed 

in Table 1, Table No. 152; Sector Ohio 

Valley, No. 28 is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port or 

a designated representative. Persons or 

vessels desiring to enter into or passage 

through the safety zone must request 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

Pittsburgh or a designated 

representative. If permission is granted, 

all persons and vessels shall comply 

with the instructions of the Captain of 

the Port Pittsburgh or designated 

representative. 

This document is issued under 

authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 33 U.S.C. 

1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 

3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05– 

1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Public Law 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 

0170.1. In addition to this document in 

the Federal Register, the Coast Guard 

will provide the maritime community 

with advance notification of this 

enforcement period via Local Notice to 

Mariners and updates via Marine 

Information Broadcasts. 

If the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or 

designated representative determines 

that the Safety Zone need not be 

enforced for the full duration stated in 

this document of enforcement, he or she 

may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners 

to grant general permission to enter the 

regulated area. 

Dated: May 28, 2014. 

L.N. Weaver, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port, Pittsburgh. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14175 Filed 6–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2013–OESE–0159; CFDA 

Number: 84.215G] 

Final Priorities, Requirement, and 

Definitions; Innovative Approaches to 

Literacy (IAL) Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education (Department). 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirement, 

and definitions. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

announces priorities, a requirement, and 

definitions under the IAL program. The 

Assistant Secretary may use one or more 

of the priorities, requirement, and 

definitions for competitions in fiscal 

year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take 

this action to ensure IAL projects are 

supported, at a minimum, by evidence 

of strong theory, and to focus Federal 

financial assistance on projects that 

serve rural local educational agencies 

(LEAs). 

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, 

requirement, and definitions are 

effective July 17, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Moore Miller, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 3E235, Washington, DC 20202– 

6200. Telephone: (202) 453–5621 or by 

email: david.miller@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: 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the IAL program is to support highquality projects designed to develop and 

improve literacy skills for children and 

students from birth through 12th grade 

within the attendance boundaries of 

high-need LEAs and schools. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7243–7243b. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirement, and definitions 

for this program in the Federal Register 

on February 28, 2014 (79 FR 11363). 

That notice contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the particular priorities, 

requirement, and definitions. 

There are differences between the 

proposed priorities, requirement, and 

definitions and these final priorities, 

requirement, and definitions as 

discussed in the Analysis of Comments 

and Changes section elsewhere in this 

notice. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priorities, requirement, and definitions, 

nine parties submitted comments on the 

proposed priorities, requirement, and 

definitions. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priorities, requirement, 

and definitions since publication of the 

notice of proposed priorities, 

requirement, and definitions follows. 

Priorities 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we amend proposed 

priority 1 to require, as a minimum level 

of evidence, that projects be supported 

by evidence of promise rather than 

strong theory. The commenter explained 

that the strong theory level of evidence 

proposed in priority 1 appears to set a 

lower standard of evidence than was 

used in the previous competition, which 

required applicants to cite at least one 

study in support of the proposed project 

that meets the definition of 

‘‘scientifically valid research.’’ The 

commenter also recommended that the 

Department look for stronger standards 

of evidence for all applicants. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that the Department should 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 34429 

encourage the use of strong standards of 

evidence in general. Because we found 

the term imprecise, we do not refer to 

‘‘scientifically based research’’ in the 

priority. While an applicant to this 

program would now only need to 

provide evidence of strong theory in 

support of its proposed project, we 

think that this approach prepares the 

applicant to thoughtfully and 

successfully implement its project. 

Setting the minimum requirement of 

evidence at the strong theory level also 

allows for the most innovative project 

proposals because applicants are not 

restricted by a higher standard of 

evidence that would require some 

degree of replication of a previously 

executed approach. 

Through selection criteria in 34 CFR 

75.210, the Department can encourage 

the applicant to design a project 

evaluation that may help build on the 

level of evidence available for future 

projects. For example, if a project that 

uses strong theory is successful, the 

evaluation report that a grantee will 

prepare, as outlined in the selection 

criteria, could serve as sufficient 

evidence of promise for applicants to 

cite in support of future proposals. We 

take this approach in order to empower 

applicants to propose innovative ideas 

that, if successful, will broaden the base 

of available evidence in the field. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we identify each proposed priority as 

absolute, competitive, or invitational. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s interest in learning the 

type of priorities that will be assigned 

in upcoming competitions. It is our 

practice, however, to specify the priority 

types for each competition in the notice 

inviting applications, not in a notice of 

proposed priorities or a notice of final 

priorities. 

Changes: None. 

Eligibility 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended including as an eligible 

entity a regional education service 

agency (RESA), as defined by the 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

The commenter noted that in many 

locations, these agencies act as 

intermediary agents between education 

departments and high-need rural LEAs 

that may otherwise lack capacity to 

apply for Federal grants. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s recommendation to 

include RESAs and other intermediary 

agencies as eligible applicants for this 

program; however, such entities 

generally already meet the definition of 

LEA included in the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA). Section 9101(26)(A) of 

the ESEA defines an ‘‘LEA’’ as an entity 

that is recognized in a State as an 

administrative agency for its public 

elementary schools or secondary 

schools, and section 9101(26)(D) of the 

ESEA specifically includes educational 

service agencies and consortia of those 

agencies under the term ‘‘LEA.’’ 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended expanding the eligibility 

requirement to include high-need 

populations that are not served by highneed LEAs. One noted that some 

preschool sites served by national notfor-profit organizations (NNPs) may not 

fall within the attendance boundaries of 

a high-need LEA, yet may still be 

serving high-need children. The other 

commenter recommended including 

low-performing and unaccredited 

districts as eligible entities, and also 

expanding the target population to 

include students of families with 

incomes below the poverty line, but 

who attend schools in LEAs that do not 

meet the threshold of 25 percent of 

students from families with incomes 

below the poverty line. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ recommendations to 

consider expanding eligibility and the 

target population served. However, the 

Department must focus its limited 

resources on the areas of highest need. 

The eligibility requirement we have 

established is designed to ensure that 

IAL funds will reach those communities 

most in need. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we provide 

additional guidance regarding 

acceptable Census Bureau data sets for 

determining high-need LEAs, noting 

that the Census Bureau’s Small Area 

Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) 

data set does not include children from 

birth through age four in its school 

district poverty estimates. The 

commenter also noted that the Census 

Bureau’s American Community Survey 

(ACS) data set includes family poverty 

information for students birth through 

age four. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s recommendation for 

clarification concerning the acceptable 

Census Bureau data set for determining 

target population eligibility. Although 

we recognize that the SAIPE for school 

districts lacks specific information for 

children under age five, at this time 

SAIPE are the most satisfactory data 

available from the U.S. Census Bureau 

for the purposes of this program. 

While we agree that poverty data for 

birth through age four would be useful 

for determining eligibility for this 

program, the Census Bureau’s modelbased SAIPE data provide single-year 

estimates for students aged 5–17 that are 

more reflective of current conditions 

than are the multi-year survey estimates 

provided by ACS data. That is, SAIPE 

methodology combines ACS estimates 

with other data sources to provide more 

timely, precise, and stable estimates 

than the five-year ACS estimates alone. 

Significantly, SAIPE data incorporate 

‘‘grade relevance,’’ whereas ACS 

estimates do not. For areas with small 

populations, SAIPE data contain less 

uncertainty and have lower error 

variance than ACS estimates. SAIPE 

data therefore provide more accurate 

representations of student poverty 

information than ACS data. 

A list of high-need LEAs, by State, 

that are eligible for IAL funding in FY 

2014 will be available at the program 

Web site (http://www2.ed.gov/

programs/innovapproaches-literacy/

index.html) when this notice and the 

notice inviting applications are 

published. 

Although we do not support using a 

different source of data for determining 

eligibility under this program, we do 

believe a modification to the definition 

of ‘‘high-need LEA’’ is appropriate. In 

order to ensure the definition of ‘‘highneed LEA’’ is consistent with the SAIPE 

data used to determine eligibility, we 

believe that we should change the 

reference from ‘‘geographic area’’ to 

‘‘school attendance area’’ and adjust the 

age range from 0–17 to 5–17. 

Also, we note that SAIPE are data 

used under section 1124(c)(3) of Title I 

of the ESEA for the purpose of making 

allocations and that not all LEAs are 

listed on the Census Bureau’s lists. 

Therefore, we also clarify that States 

determine eligibility status for LEAs that 

are not listed with SAIPE data (e.g., 

charter school LEAs, State-administered 

schools, and regional service agencies), 

and we provide information about how 

States may verify the elegibility of such 

LEAs. 

Changes: We have revised the 

definition of a ‘‘high-need LEA.’’ Under 

the revised definition, a ‘‘high-need 

LEA’’ is one in which at least 25 percent 

of the students aged 5–17 in the ‘‘school 

attendance area’’ of the LEA (rather than 

‘‘geographic area’’) are from families 

with incomes below the poverty line 

based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates for school districts for the 

most recent income year (Census list). In 

addition, we added language to the 

definition of a ‘‘high-need LEA’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
34430 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

addressing how to determine if an LEA 

that is not on the Census list, such as 

a charter school LEA, is a ‘‘high-need 

LEA.’’ Such an LEA is considered a 

‘‘high-need LEA’’ if the State 

educational agency (SEA) determines, 

consistent with the manner in which the 

SEA determines an LEA’s eligibility for 

Title I allocations, that 25 percent of the 

students aged 5–17 in the LEA are from 

families with incomes below the 

poverty line. 

Also, based on the revised definition 

of ‘‘high-need LEA,’’ we have made a 

corresponding technical change to 

Proposed Priority 1 to delete the phrase 

‘‘within attendance boundaries’’ 

because the revised definition of ‘‘highneed LEA’’ now contemplates LEAs 

(such as charter school LEAs) that may 

draw students from beyond attendance 

boundaries. 

Reporting 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended broadening the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA) measures to include 

reporting on children birth through 12th 

grade, noting that the current measures 

exclude reporting for children younger 

than age four, students who are in 

kindergarten, and students in grades 

four and five. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s recommendation to 

broaden GPRA reporting measures for 

this program. However, we intend the 

GPRA measures for this program to 

provide an overview of program 

performance rather than to assess 

performance at the level of each age or 

grade-level served. Given the variety of 

projects possible under this program, we 

believe that applicants are best 

equipped to develop detailed 

performance measures that address the 

goals and objectives unique to 

individual projects. We note that 

although GPRA reporting is not required 

for projects to which GPRA reporting 

measures do not apply, the Department 

will be able to collect data on progress 

for children younger than age four, 

students in kindergarten, and students 

in grades four and five from projectspecific performance measures 

developed as part of the grantees’ local 

evaluation design. 

Changes: None. 

General 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the onus to 

coordinate with school libraries should 

be placed on LEAs and NNPs, rather 

than requiring school libraries to 

coordinate with LEAs and NNPs. The 

commenter indicated that this change 

would ensure better consistency with 

the guiding language from S. Rep. 113– 

17 and the Federal grantmaking process. 

Discussion: We agree that placing the 

onus on LEAs and NNPs, rather than on 

school libraries, to coordinate resources 

in developing IAL proposals will ensure 

better consistency with the cited report 

language and the Federal grantmaking 

process. 

Changes: We have revised the 

eligibility requirement by adding 

language to indicate that LEAs and 

NNPs must coordinate with school 

libraries in developing project 

proposals. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that current IAL grantees 

who apply for IAL funds in future 

competitions should be permitted to 

continue serving the same populations. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s recommendation. 

However, proposing to serve the same 

populations that were served in a 

previous award is already allowable and 

does not disqualify an applicant from 

receiving funds in a new award, 

provided the applicant meets the 

eligibility requirements of the program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

funding be directed toward initiatives 

that include cross-sector literacy and 

parental engagement programs, as well 

as those operating outside of traditional 

education settings, including within the 

healthcare infrastructure. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s recommendation that we 

direct funding toward cross-sector and 

non-traditional settings; however, the 

types of projects the commenter 

described are already possible under 

this program because there are no 

limitations on the locations at which 

services can be provided or the partners 

a grantee may choose. Additionally, we 

do not want to specify in this manner 

the types of projects that an applicant 

may propose, as we wish to maximize 

flexibility for applicants seeking to 

develop innovative project proposals. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priorities 

Final Priority 1—High-Quality Plan for 

Innovative Approaches to Literacy That 

Include Book Distribution, Childhood 

Literacy Activities, or Both, and That Is 

Supported, at a Minimum, by Evidence 

of Strong Theory (as Defined in 34 CFR 

77.1(c)) 

To meet this priority, applicants must 

submit a plan that is supported by 

evidence of strong theory, including a 

rationale for the proposed process, 

product, strategy, or practice and a 

corresponding logic model (as defined 

in 34 CFR 77.1(c)). 

The applicant must submit a plan 

with the following information: 

(a) A description of the proposed book 

distribution, childhood literacy 

activities, or both, that are designed to 

improve the literacy skills of children 

and students by one or more of the 

following— 

(1) Promoting early literacy and 

preparing young children to read; 

(2) developing and improving 

students’ reading ability; 

(3) motivating older children to read; 

and 

(4) teaching children and students to 

read. 

(b) the age or grade spans of children 

and students from birth through 12th 

grade to be served. 

(c) a detailed description of the key 

goals, the activities to be undertaken, 

the rationale for those activities, the 

timeline, the parties responsible for 

implementing the activities, and the 

credibility of the plan (as judged, in 

part, by the information submitted as 

evidence of strong theory); and 

(d)(i) a description of how the 

proposed project is supported by strong 

theory; and 

(ii) the corresponding logic model (as 

defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)). 

Final Priority 2—Serving Rural LEAs 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must propose a project designed to 

provide high-quality literacy 

programming, or distribute books, or 

both, to students served by a rural LEA 

(as defined in this notice). 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 34431 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Requirement 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

establishes the following requirement 

for this program. We may apply this 

requirement in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Eligibility: To be considered for an 

award under this competition, an 

applicant must: 

(a) Be one of the following: 

(1) A high-need LEA (as defined in 

this notice); 

(2) An NNP (as defined in this notice) 

that serves children and students within 

the attendance boundaries of one or 

more high-need LEAs; 

(3) A consortium of NNPs that serves 

children and students within the 

attendance boundaries of one or more 

high-need LEAs; 

(4) A consortium of high-need LEAs; 

or 

(5) A consortium of one or more highneed LEAs and one or more NNPs that 

serve children and students within the 

attendance boundaries of one or more 

high-need LEAs. 

(b) Coordinate with school libraries in 

developing project proposals. 

Final Definitions 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

establishes 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: 

College- and career-ready standards 

means content standards for 

kindergarten through 12th grade that 

build towards college and career 

readiness by the time of high school 

graduation. A State’s college- and 

career-ready standards must be either 

(1) standards that are common to a 

significant number of States; or (2) 

standards that are approved by a State 

network of institutions of higher 

education, which must certify that 

students who meet the standards will 

not need remedial course work at the 

postsecondary level. 

Comprehensive statewide literacy 

plan means a plan (which may be a 

component or modification of the plan 

submitted under the Striving Readers 

Comprehensive Literacy formula grant 

program, CFDA 84.371B) that addresses 

the literacy and language needs of 

children from birth through 12th grade, 

including English learners and students 

with disabilities; aligns literacy policies, 

resources, and practices; contains clear 

instructional goals; and sets high 

expectations for all students and student 

subgroups. 

High-need local educational agency 

(High-need LEA) means— 

(i) Except for LEAs referenced in 

paragraph (ii), an LEA in which at least 

25 percent of the students aged 5–17 in 

the school attendance area of the LEA 

are from families with incomes below 

the poverty line, based on data from the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area 

Income and Poverty Estimates for school 

districts for the most recent income year 

(Census list). 

(ii) For an LEA that is not included on 

the Census list, such as a charter school 

LEA, an LEA for which the State 

educational agency (SEA) determines, 

consistent with the manner described 

under section 1124(c) of the ESEA in 

which the SEA determines an LEA’s 

eligibility for Title I allocations, that 25 

percent of the students aged 5–17 in the 

LEA are from families with incomes 

below the poverty line. 

National not-for-profit (NNP) 

organization means an agency, 

organization, or institution owned and 

operated by one or more corporations or 

associations whose net earnings do not 

benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit, any 

private shareholder or entity. In 

addition, it means, for the purposes of 

this program, an organization of 

national scope that is supported by staff 

or affiliates at the State and local levels, 

who may include volunteers, and that 

has a demonstrated history of effectively 

developing and implementing literacy 

activities. 

Note: A local affiliate of an NNP does not 

meet the definition of NNP. Only a national 

agency, organization, or institution is eligible 

to apply as an NNP. 

Rural local educational agency (Rural 

LEA) means an LEA that is eligible 

under the Small Rural School 

Achievement program (SRSA) or the 

Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) 

program authorized under Title VI, Part 

B of the ESEA at the time of application. 

Universal design for learning (UDL) 

means a scientifically valid framework 

for guiding educational practice that (i) 

provides flexibility in the ways 

information is presented, in the ways 

students respond or demonstrate 

knowledge and skills, and in the ways 

students are engaged; and (ii) reduces 

barriers in instruction, provides 

appropriate accommodations, supports, 

and challenges, and maintains high 

achievement expectations for all 

students, including students with 

disabilities and students who are 

English learners. 

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, 

requirement, 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 final 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 final 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
34432 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 final priorities, 

requirement, 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. 

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 does 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. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible 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: June 11, 2014. 

Deborah Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14047 Filed 6–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0298; FRL–9912–21– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Portable Fuel Container 

Amendment to Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision 

involves removing the Commonwealth’s 

portable fuel container (PFC) regulations 

for control of evaporative emissions 

from new and in-use PFCs from the 

Pennsylvania SIP. In the submittal, 

Pennsylvania demonstrates that Federal 

PFC regulations promulgated by EPA in 

2007 are expected to provide equal to or 

greater emissions reductions than those 

resulting from the Commonwealth’s. 

EPA is approving this revision removing 

the Commonwealth’s PFC regulations 

because the revision is in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

18, 2014 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by July 17, 2014. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0298 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0298, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0298. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES