Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 9815 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: February 4, 2013. 

David M. Frank, 

Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03123 Filed 2–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

[Docket ID ED–2012–OII–0013] 

RIN 1855–AA08 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Supporting Effective Educator 

Development [CFDA Number: 

84.367D.] 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement announces priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria under the Supporting Effective 

Educator Development (SEED) program. 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use 

one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for competitions fiscal year (FY) 

2013 and later years. We take this action 

to help national not-for-profit 

organizations build evidence on how 

best to recruit, train, and support 

effective teachers and school leaders; 

recruit and prepare effective science, 

technology, engineering, and 

mathematics teachers; and invest in 

efforts that increase student 

achievement by improving teacher and 

principal effectiveness. 

DATES: These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

effective March 14, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Wilson, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 4W125, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–6709 or by email: 

SEED@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf or a text telephone, 

call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, 

at 1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of Program: The SEED 

program provides funding for grants to 

national not-for-profit organizations for 

projects that support teacher or 

principal training or professional 

enhancement activities and are 

supported by at least moderate evidence 

of effectiveness (as defined in this 

notice). 

Program Authority: Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–74, Title III, Division F). 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria (NPP) for this program 

in the Federal Register on September 4, 

2012 (77 FR 53819). That notice 

contained background information and 

our reasons for proposing the particular 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 

These final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

contain some changes from the NPP. We 

fully explain these changes in the 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

section in this notice. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 18 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and any 

changes in the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria since 

publication of the NPP follows. 

Eligibility 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the Department alter the 

eligibility criteria to allow more types of 

entities to apply for a SEED program 

grant. One commenter recommended 

that we allow applications from large 

local educational agencies (LEAs) or 

LEAs with large numbers of students in 

poverty. Three commenters 

recommended that we allow 

applications from local, State, or 

regional not-for-profit organizations. 

Discussion: We agree that other 

entities, including LEAs and local, 

State, and regional not-for-profit 

organizations, have expertise in 

preparing and supporting teachers and 

principals. However, the legislation that 

governs the SEED program allows for 

awards only to national not-for-profit 

organizations. Consequently, while 

eligible national not-for-profit 

applicants may partner with LEAs and 

local, State, and regional not-for-profit 

organizations to carry out their projects, 

the Department does not have the 

authority to award a SEED program 

grant to other types of entities. 

Change: None. 

Priorities 

Comment: One commenter supported 

our focus on high-need students but also 

requested that we add a priority on 

recruiting, developing, and retaining 

educators from underrepresented 

backgrounds to increase teacher success. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter on the importance of 

recruiting and developing educators 

from diverse backgrounds who reflect 

the backgrounds of their students. We 

have made this commitment explicit in 

option (b) of priority 4, Promoting 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education, which 

requires applicants to demonstrate how 

they will increase the number of 

individuals from groups traditionally 

underrepresented in STEM. We also 

believe that priorities 1, 2, 3, and 5 

provide applicants with the flexibility to 

identify strategies, including those that 

focus on recruiting and supporting 

teachers and principals from 

underrepresented backgrounds, to 

improve teacher and principal 

effectiveness for the targeted students 

and schools. For these reasons, we 

decline to add another priority 

specifically focused on recruiting, 

developing, and retaining teachers and 

principals from underrepresented 

groups. 

Change: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

identify certain priorities as absolute or 

competitive. 

Discussion: The Department generally 

does not designate priorities as absolute 

or competitive as part of a notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria in order to maintain 

maximum flexibility in how we use the 

priorities in future competitions. For 

each future competition, we will 

designate priorities as absolute or 

competitive in the notice inviting 

applications. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we specifically cite 

assessment literacy—that is, the 

understanding and use of assessment 

data—as a required competency for 

teachers and principals in the priorities 

and as one of the measures in the 

definitions of ‘‘highly effective teacher’’ 

and ‘‘highly effective principal.’’ 

Additionally, the commenter 

recommended that we require 

applicants to evaluate assessment 

literacy predominantly based on 

performance, including classroom 

observations and artifact reviews, and 

that we require applicants to use a 

minimum of three years of data in 

measuring student growth as an 

indicator of teacher effectiveness. 

Discussion: While we agree that it is 

important for teachers and principals to 

understand and use data and assessment 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
9816 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

results to improve teaching, we believe 

this goal is reflected in the priorities and 

selection criteria. For priorities 1, 2, 3, 

4, and 5, applicants are required to 

describe how they will measure the 

effect of their proposed project activities 

on their participants and the students 

they serve. Further, the selection criteria 

require applicants to describe how their 

proposed projects are expected to 

advance and develop teacher and school 

leadership theory and practice such that 

they increase teacher and student 

success. Applicants must also describe 

how they propose to evaluate their 

project outcomes. We believe that 

assessment literacy is implicit in these 

priorities and selection criteria. Just as 

we allow maximum flexibility for 

applicants to design their projects by 

not prescribing specific strategies or 

curricula for the proposed teacher and 

principal preparation, professional 

development, and advanced 

credentialing projects, we do not think 

it appropriate to add or prescribe 

assessment literacy as a requirement. 

Also, under this program, an eligible 

applicant is not precluded from using 

supplemental performance measures 

such as observations and artifact 

reviews to distinguish highly effective 

teachers, provided that teacher 

effectiveness is evaluated, in significant 

part, based on student growth (as 

defined in this notice). 

Regarding the recommendation that 

an applicant use a minimum of three 

years of data to measure student growth 

as an indicator of teacher effectiveness, 

the program does not specify a time 

period for collecting data on student 

growth. However, applicants must 

describe how their proposed objective 

performance measures are clearly 

related to the outcomes of the project 

and will produce quantitative and 

qualitative data within the grant 

performance period. 

Change: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that we provide applicants 

flexibility in determining how they 

track the effect that their participating 

educators have on student growth. 

Additionally, they requested that we 

clarify whether applicants are required 

to create new teacher evaluation 

systems to track their participants’ 

effectiveness. One commenter also 

asked the Department to clarify who 

would determine whether the 

evaluation systems are fair. 

Discussion: While several of the 

priorities require that applicants track 

their participants’ effectiveness based in 

part on student growth, none of them 

requires applicants to create new 

evaluation systems. Applicants may 

choose which evaluation system to use, 

so long as it meets the requirements 

discussed in the relevant priority. 

Additionally, applicants must describe 

how the system they propose to use 

meets the requirements of the priority, 

including how the system is fair. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

using indicators other than student 

growth to determine teacher 

effectiveness so that student test scores 

are not the primary determinant of 

teacher effectiveness. Additionally, the 

commenter requested that we require 

that teachers be involved in deciding 

which indicators are used in the teacher 

evaluation systems utilized by 

applicants. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that the effectiveness of teachers and 

principals cannot be evaluated by test 

scores alone. Priorities 2, 3, 4, and 5 

specifically state that, while based in 

significant part on student growth, 

effectiveness must be determined 

‘‘through a rigorous, transparent, and 

fair evaluation in which performance is 

differentiated using multiple measures 

of effectiveness.’’ The definition of 

‘‘student growth’’ in this notice also 

states that an applicant may include 

other measures that are rigorous and 

comparable across classrooms. 

Moreover, to meet the requirement that 

their teacher and principal evaluations 

are fair and transparent, applicants must 

demonstrate how key stakeholders such 

as teachers and principals were 

included in the evaluation 

development. Therefore, we decline to 

make these recommended changes. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we consider the 

approaches of other high-performing 

countries that emphasize teacher 

recruitment, training, and support. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the priorities proposed in the NPP 

align with the best practices in teacher 

recruitment and development. 

Additionally, applicants may propose 

strategies that are used in other 

countries so long as they demonstrate 

that those strategies will have a positive 

effect on their target populations. 

Change: None. 

Priority 1 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we expand priority 1 to include 

other types of school leaders, such as 

charter school executives. 

Discussion: The legislation governing 

the SEED program allows funding only 

for projects focused on recruiting, 

training, and supporting effective 

teachers and principals. The 

Department does not have the authority 

to expand the priority to include other 

school leaders. However, participating 

educators may include public charter 

school leaders who serve in principal 

roles. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we separate priority 

1 into two priorities, one that focuses on 

the needs of teachers and one that 

focuses on the needs of principals. 

Discussion: The Department 

recognizes that the preparation and 

development needs of principals are 

distinct from the needs of teachers. 

However, we believe the priority as 

written clearly permits applicants to 

focus their activities on teachers, 

principals, or both. Also, we believe that 

separate priorities for teachers and 

principals may inadvertently discourage 

prospective applicants from proposing 

projects that include both teachers and 

principals. Therefore, we decline to 

make this change. 

Change: None. 

Priority 2 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department clarify whether 

applicants must work exclusively with 

schools with high concentrations of 

high-need students or if they may pair 

master teachers from schools with lower 

concentrations of high-need students 

with teachers from schools with high 

concentrations of such students. 

Discussion: The intent of the priority 

is to improve student achievement by 

increasing the number of highly 

effective teachers in schools with high 

concentrations of high-need students. 

While applicants must demonstrate that 

the primary focus of their proposed 

activities is on improving student 

achievement and teacher effectiveness 

in schools with high concentrations of 

high-need students, there is no 

requirement that all teachers involved 

in a project be from such schools. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that, to increase student literacy skills, 

we broaden this priority to allow for 

professional development efforts to 

improve the writing instruction skills of 

all teachers, not just teachers of English 

language arts. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that, to improve student literacy and 

writing skills, it is important for all 

teachers to know how to teach writing 

in their subject areas. We are revising 

the priority to support projects that 

provide professional development 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 9817 

focused on writing for teachers of all 

subject areas. 

Change: We have removed the 

requirement that the professional 

development must be targeted only to 

teachers of English language arts. The 

revised priority allows applicants to 

propose projects that provide 

professional development for all 

teachers to develop and enhance their 

teaching of writing to improve student 

literacy and writing skills. 

Priority 3 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the inclusion of a priority focused on 

advanced credentialing for teachers and 

principals. The commenter suggested 

that we clarify that the priority does not 

require all teachers seeking an advanced 

certification also to take on a career 

ladder position. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that requiring all teachers who receive 

an advanced credential to take career 

ladder positions would be too limiting 

to applicants. We did not intend to limit 

potential candidates to those who have 

career ladder positions available to 

them. Rather, we intended to indicate 

that those teachers who complete an 

advanced credential program should be 

qualified to take on available career 

ladder positions. 

Change: We clarified the language of 

the priority to indicate that completion 

of an advanced credential program may, 

but is not required to, lead to a career 

ladder position. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we add to the 

priority a requirement that applicants 

submit a rigorous, standards-based 

framework for identifying teacher 

leaders and that such a framework be 

built upon the applicant’s record of 

recognizing and developing 

accomplished teachers. 

Discussion: We believe the priority 

already addresses the concerns raised by 

the commenter. For example, the 

priority requires an applicant to propose 

a rigorous, competitive selection process 

for determining which teachers or 

principals participate in the applicant’s 

proposed project. Additionally, the 

priority requires applicants to focus 

their proposed projects on encouraging 

and supporting teachers or principals 

who seek a standards-based advanced 

certificate or credential and who would 

serve as models, mentors, or coaches to 

other teachers or principals. Further, 

applicants are not precluded from 

including in their proposals a history of, 

and a project framework based on, their 

previous experience of developing 

teachers. Thus, we decline to make this 

change. 

Change: None. 

Priority 4 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the use of a priority focused on the 

STEM subject areas but suggested that 

we change the priority to specifically 

allow applicants to provide professional 

development to teachers so that they 

can become content-area coaches. 

Discussion: We believe that there are 

a number of professional development 

approaches that could accomplish the 

program goal of increasing the number 

of highly effective teachers or principals 

and that this goal would not be served 

by highlighting one particular approach 

over others. The priority does not 

prohibit an applicant from proposing 

activities designed to develop teachers 

to be content-area coaches, so long as 

the applicant indicates how the 

activities would increase the number of 

highly effective teachers for the targeted 

schools and districts. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we define STEM subjects under this 

priority and that the definition 

specifically include computer science. 

Discussion: We decline to limit STEM 

subjects under this priority, in order to 

give applicants the flexibility to address 

the subjects of greatest interest and 

demand in their districts and schools. 

Applicants are not precluded from 

targeting or including computer science 

as a subject on which to focus to meet 

this priority. 

Change: None. 

Priority 5 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Because the term ‘‘core’’ 

has been defined and used in other 

contexts to describe academic subjects 

for Department programs, to avoid 

confusion we decided not to use that 

term in the priority. 

Change: We removed all references to 

‘‘core’’ when describing academic 

subjects in the title and content of the 

priority. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we add computer science to the list 

of possible academic subjects covered 

under this priority. 

Discussion: As stated previously, 

computer science could be specifically 

addressed through priority 4. We 

decline to add computer science to the 

list of academic subjects in this priority 

to avoid duplicating subject areas that 

are included in other priorities. 

Moreover, applicants addressing this 

priority are not precluded from 

including computer science within the 

context of their proposed academic 

subjects. 

Change: None. 

Priority 6 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we eliminate this 

priority because it does not focus on 

educational outcomes. 

Discussion: We agree that the main 

intent of the SEED program is to 

improve student outcomes. However, 

another important focus is finding more 

efficient ways of achieving the same 

educational outcomes. 

Change: None. 

Definitions 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we broaden the definition of 

‘‘national not-for-profit’’ to include local 

and regional entities whose activities 

align with national education priorities 

and who will disseminate their projects’ 

findings nationally. 

Discussion: While we know there are 

a number of high-performing regional 

and local not-for-profit entities that 

align their activities with national 

education priorities, the intent of this 

program is to support entities that have 

demonstrated their capacity to 

effectively respond to education 

priorities on a national scale. The 

commenter’s suggested change would 

include those entities that target their 

activities to a more limited geographic 

area and therefore may lack the capacity 

to scale up a project to a national level. 

We note that these regionally and 

locally based entities may serve as 

partners to, or recipients of services 

proposed by, national not-for-profit 

entities that apply for a grant under this 

program. However, the legislation that 

governs the SEED program allows for 

awards only to national not-for-profit 

organizations. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department clarify what an 

affiliate is for the purpose of the 

definition of a ‘‘national not-for-profit.’’ 

Discussion: We chose not to define 

‘‘affiliate’’ because of the many and 

varying types of affiliations. Instead we 

are allowing flexibility for applicants to 

describe the specific roles of their 

affiliates in providing the applicants’ 

services in the States in which those 

affiliates are located. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked us 

to clarify whether the mastery of 1.5 

grade levels in an academic year is a 

minimum threshold of student growth 

that teachers and principals must reach 

to be considered a highly effective 

teacher or highly effective principal. 

Discussion: The reference to 1.5 grade 

levels in an academic year in the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
9818 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

definition of ‘‘highly effective teacher’’ 

is an example of student growth; the 

definition does not specify the measure 

of student growth that eligible 

applicants must use. Further, the 

definition does not require that an 

applicant use the same measure of 

growth for all teachers. However, we 

urge applicants to ensure that any rate 

used enables the applicant to 

distinguish teachers who are highly 

effective from those who are not. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

broaden the definition of ‘‘highly 

effective teacher’’ because grade levels 

are not clear in certain subject areas. 

Discussion: The Department declines 

to broaden this definition because we 

believe it is important that all teachers 

are held to the same high standard. We 

note, as discussed in the response to the 

previous comment, that student mastery 

of 1.5 grade levels in an academic year 

is an example of, and not a requirement 

for, meeting the definition of ‘‘highly 

effective teacher’’ and that the same 

student growth rates are not required for 

all teachers. Moreover, the definition of 

‘‘highly effective teacher’’ allows for 

additional measures, including those 

based on observation-based assessments 

of teacher performance or evidence of 

leadership roles resulting in increased 

effectiveness of other teachers in the 

school or LEA. Also, the definitions of 

‘‘student achievement’’ and ‘‘student 

growth’’ allow for other measures of 

achievement, as long as they are 

rigorous and comparable across schools. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department alter the definition 

of ‘‘moderate evidence of effectiveness’’ 

to include interventions that have not 

been reviewed by the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC), that demonstrate 

impact on a mediating variable that can 

be linked to student growth, or that can 

demonstrate impact through other 

methodological approaches such as a 

quasi-experimental design. Another 

commenter requested that we clarify 

whether the studies cited by applicants 

to demonstrate that their projects are 

supported by moderate evidence of 

effectiveness need to have been 

accepted by the WWC. 

Discussion: Interventions are not 

required to have been part of a 

previously published WWC evidence 

review to meet the definition of 

‘‘moderate evidence of effectiveness.’’ 

Rather, the interventions have to show 

a positive impact on a relevant outcome. 

A relevant outcome may be an outcome 

other than a student outcome, as long as 

it is the ultimate outcome of the 

intervention and is consistent with the 

goals of the SEED program. The 

applicant must demonstrate that an 

outcome other than a student outcome 

meets the definition of ‘‘relevant 

outcome.’’ Lastly, quasi-experimental 

designs are already included in the 

definition of ‘‘moderate evidence of 

effectiveness’’ if they meet WWC 

evidence standards with reservations 

and meet all other components of the 

definition of ‘‘moderate evidence of 

effectiveness.’’ 

Change: None. 

Selection Criteria 

Comment: One commenter indicated 

that it was not clear whether the 

selection criteria would be applied 

based on the number of participants 

served by the project. 

Discussion: There is no minimum 

number of teachers or principals who 

must be served by a project. The intent 

is for applicants to provide a context 

and explanation for the number of 

proposed participants to be served by 

their projects. Reviewers will evaluate 

each application based on the 

explanation and documentation 

provided by the applicant against the 

selection criteria. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

our decision to include sustainability as 

one of the selection criteria. This 

commenter also recommended that we 

add to the sustainability criterion a 

requirement that the applicant support 

the project’s participants after the grant 

period. 

Discussion: We agree that supporting 

teachers or principals beyond their 

initial preparation or professional 

development is an important aspect of 

improving the teacher and principal 

workforce. We believe that the 

sustainability criterion sufficiently 

encourages applicants to support their 

project participants beyond the grant 

period. 

Change: None. 

Final Priorities: 

Priority 1: Teacher or Principal 

Recruitment, Selection, and 

Preparation. 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes a priority that funds projects 

that will create or expand practices and 

strategies that increase the number of 

highly effective teachers (as defined in 

this notice) or highly effective 

principals (as defined in this notice) by 

recruiting, selecting, and preparing 

talented individuals to work in schools 

with high concentrations of high-need 

students (as defined in this notice). 

Projects must include activities that 

focus on creating or expanding highperforming teacher preparation 

programs, principal preparation 

programs, or both. Activities may 

include but are not limited to expanding 

clinical experiences, redesigning and 

implementing program coursework to 

align with State standards and district 

requirements for P–12 teachers, 

providing induction and other support 

for program participants in their 

classrooms and schools, and developing 

strategies for tracking the effect program 

graduates have on the achievement of 

their students or the performance of 

their schools. 

In addition, an applicant must 

propose a plan demonstrating a 

rigorous, competitive selection process 

to determine which aspiring teachers or 

principals participate in the applicant’s 

proposed activities. 

Priority 2: Professional Development for 

Teachers to Improve their Writing 

Instruction. 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes a priority that funds projects 

designed to improve student literacy 

and writing skills by creating or 

expanding practices and strategies that 

increase the number of highly effective 

teachers (as defined in this notice) by 

improving their knowledge, 

understanding, and teaching of writing 

in the context of their subject areas. 

Projects will focus on improving writing 

instruction to increase student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

by providing high-quality professional 

development to teachers in schools with 

high concentrations of high-need 

students (as defined in this notice). 

Applicants are required to (i) describe 

the need, in the districts proposed to be 

served, for teacher professional 

development to improve student 

literacy and writing skills and (ii) 

demonstrate alignment of their 

proposed projects with State standards. 

In addition, applicants must describe 

how they plan to measure the impact 

the professional development has on the 

effectiveness of teachers served by their 

projects. Applicants must determine 

teacher effectiveness through a rigorous, 

transparent, and fair evaluation in 

which performance is differentiated 

using multiple measures of effectiveness 

and based in significant part on student 

growth (as defined in this notice). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 9819 

Priority 3: Advanced Certification and 

Advanced Credentialing. 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes a priority that funds projects 

that will create or expand practices and 

strategies based on advanced 

certification or advanced credentialing 

that increase the number of highly 

effective teachers (as defined in this 

notice), highly effective principals (as 

defined in this notice), or both, who 

work in schools with high 

concentrations of high-need students (as 

defined in this notice). 

Applicants are required to focus their 

proposed projects on encouraging and 

supporting teachers, principals, or both, 

who seek a nationally recognized, 

standards-based advanced certificate or 

advanced credential through highquality professional enhancement 

projects designed to improve teaching 

and learning for teachers who may take 

on career ladder positions (as defined in 

this notice), principals, or both who 

would serve as models, mentors, and 

coaches for other teachers, principals, or 

both working in schools with high 

concentrations of high-need students (as 

defined in this notice). 

In addition, the effectiveness of 

teachers or principals who receive 

advanced certification or credentialing 

must be determined through a rigorous, 

transparent, and fair evaluation in 

which performance is differentiated 

using multiple measures of effectiveness 

and based in significant part on student 

growth (as defined in this notice). 

Finally, an applicant must propose a 

plan demonstrating a rigorous, 

competitive selection process to 

determine which teachers or principals 

participate in the applicant’s proposed 

activities. 

Priority 4: Promoting Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education. 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes a priority that funds projects 

that address one or both of the following 

priority areas: 

(a) Increasing the opportunities for 

high-quality preparation of, or 

professional development for, teachers 

of STEM subjects. 

(b) Increasing the number of 

individuals from groups traditionally 

underrepresented in STEM, including 

minorities, individuals with disabilities, 

and women, who are teachers of STEM 

subjects and have increased 

opportunities for high-quality 

preparation or professional 

development. 

In addition, applicants must describe 

how they plan to measure the impact 

the proposed project activities have on 

teacher effectiveness. Applicants must 

determine teacher effectiveness through 

a rigorous, transparent, and fair 

evaluation in which performance is 

differentiated using multiple measures 

of effectiveness and based in significant 

part on student growth (as defined in 

this notice). 

Priority 5: Professional Development for 

Teachers of Academic Subjects. 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes a priority that funds projects 

that will create or expand practices and 

strategies that increase the number of 

highly effective teachers (as defined in 

this notice) by providing professional 

development opportunities to teachers, 

including special education teachers, in 

schools with high concentrations of 

high-need students (as defined in this 

notice). Projects must focus on 

increasing student achievement (as 

defined in this notice) in academic 

subjects by providing high-quality 

professional development to teachers. 

The academic subjects that may be 

addressed through professional 

development under this priority include 

foreign languages, civics and 

government, economics, arts, history, 

physical education, geography, 

environmental education, and financial 

literacy. 

Applicants are required to describe 

the need of the proposed districts to be 

served for teacher professional 

development in the selected high-need 

academic subjects and to demonstrate 

alignment of the proposed projects with 

State standards. 

In addition, applicants must describe 

how they plan to measure the impact 

the professional development has on 

teacher effectiveness. Applicants must 

determine teacher effectiveness through 

a rigorous, transparent, and fair 

evaluation in which performance is 

differentiated using multiple measures 

of effectiveness and based in significant 

part on student growth (as defined in 

this notice). 

Priority 6: Improving Efficiency (CostEffectiveness). 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes a priority that funds projects 

that will identify strategies for providing 

cost-effective, high-quality services at 

the State, regional, or local level by 

making better use of available resources. 

Such projects may include innovative 

and sustainable uses of technology, 

modification of school schedules and 

teacher compensation systems, use of 

open educational resources (as defined 

in this notice), or other strategies. 

Priority 7: Supporting Practices and 

Strategies for Which There Is Strong 

Evidence of Effectiveness. 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes a priority that funds projects 

that are supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness (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 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Requirements 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes the following requirements 

for the SEED program. We may apply 

these requirements in any year in which 

this program is in effect. 

Eligible applicants: To be eligible for 

a SEED program grant, an entity must be 

a national not-for-profit organization (as 

defined in this notice). Each applicant 

must provide in its application 

documentation that it is a national notfor-profit organization (as defined in 

this notice). 

Evidence of effectiveness: To be 

eligible for funding, an applicant must 

demonstrate that its proposed project is 

supported by at least moderate evidence 

of effectiveness (as defined in this 

notice). 

Each applicant must provide in its 

application documentation that its 

proposed project is supported by at least 

moderate evidence of effectiveness. An 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
9820 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1See WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook 

(Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently 

be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ 

ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

2See WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook 

(Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently 

be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ 

ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

applicant that responds to the 

Supporting Practices and Strategies for 

Which There Is Strong Evidence of 

Effectiveness priority also must provide 

documentation that its proposed project 

is supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness (as defined in this notice). 

An applicant must ensure that all 

evidence is available to the Department 

from publically available sources and 

provide links or references to, or copies 

of, the evidence in the application. If the 

Department determines that an 

applicant has provided insufficient 

evidence that its proposed project meets 

the definition of ‘‘moderate evidence of 

effectiveness’’ or ‘‘strong evidence of 

effectiveness,’’ the applicant will not 

have an opportunity to provide 

additional evidence to support its 

application. 

Evaluations: An applicant receiving 

funds under this program must comply 

with the requirements of any evaluation 

of the program conducted by the 

Department. In addition, an applicant 

receiving funds under this program 

must make broadly available through 

formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or 

informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, 

in print or electronically, the results of 

any evaluations it conducts of its 

funded activities. 

Final Definitions 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes the following definitions for 

the SEED program. We may apply one 

or more of these definitions in any year 

in which this program is in effect. 

Career ladder positions means schoolbased instructional leadership positions 

designed to improve instructional 

practice, which teachers may 

voluntarily accept, such as positions 

described as master teacher, mentor 

teacher, demonstration or model 

teacher, or instructional coach, and for 

which teachers are selected based on 

criteria that are predictive of the ability 

to lead other teachers. 

High-need students means students at 

risk of educational failure, such as 

students who are living in poverty, who 

are English learners, who are far below 

grade level or who are not on track to 

becoming college- or career-ready by 

graduation, who have left school or 

college before receiving, respectively, a 

regular high school diploma or a college 

degree or certificate, who are at risk of 

not graduating with a diploma on time, 

who are homeless, who are in foster 

care, who are pregnant or parenting 

teenagers, who have been incarcerated, 

who are new immigrants, who are 

migrant, or who have disabilities. 

Highly effective principal means a 

principal whose students, overall and 

for each subgroup as described in 

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

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act, as amended (ESEA) (i.e., 

economically disadvantaged students, 

students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, students with disabilities, and 

students with limited English 

proficiency), achieve high rates (e.g., 

one and one-half grade levels in an 

academic year) of student growth. 

Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

principal effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, based on student 

growth. Supplemental measures may 

include, for example, high school 

graduation rates; college enrollment 

rates; evidence of providing supportive 

teaching and learning conditions, 

support for ensuring effective 

instruction across subject areas for a 

well-rounded education, strong 

instructional leadership, and positive 

family and community engagement; or 

evidence of attracting, developing, and 

retaining high numbers of effective 

teachers. 

Highly effective teacher means a 

teacher whose students achieve high 

rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels 

in an academic year) of student growth. 

Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, based on student 

growth. Supplemental measures may 

include, for example, multiple 

observation-based assessments of 

teacher performance or evidence of 

leadership roles (which may include 

mentoring or leading professional 

development learning communities) 

that increase effectiveness of other 

teachers in the school or local 

educational agency (LEA). 

Large sample means a sample of 350 

or more students (or other single 

analysis units) who were randomly 

assigned to a treatment or control group, 

or 50 or more groups (such as 

classrooms or schools) that contain 10 

or more students (or other single 

analysis units) and that were randomly 

assigned to a treatment or control group. 

Moderate evidence of effectiveness 

means one of the following conditions 

is met: 

(a) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that: 

Meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) Evidence Standards without 

reservations; 1 found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

notice) (with no statistically significant 

unfavorable impacts on that outcome for 

relevant populations in the study or in 

other studies of the intervention 

reviewed by and reported on by the 

WWC); and includes a sample that 

overlaps with the populations or 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice. 

(b) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that: 

Meets the WWC Evidence Standards 

with reservations; 2 found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

notice) (with no statistically significant 

unfavorable impacts on that outcome for 

relevant populations in the study or in 

other studies of the intervention 

reviewed by and reported on by the 

WWC); includes a sample that overlaps 

with the populations or settings 

proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice; and 

includes a large sample (as defined in 

this notice) and a multi-site sample (as 

defined in this notice). (Note: Multiple 

studies can cumulatively meet the large 

and multi-site sample requirements as 

long as each study meets the other 

requirements in this paragraph.) 

Multi-site sample means more than 

one site, where site can be defined as an 

LEA, locality, or State. 

National level describes the level of 

scope or effectiveness of a process, 

product, strategy, or practice that is able 

to be effective in a wide variety of 

communities, including rural and urban 

areas, as well as with different groups 

(e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial 

and ethnic groups, migrant populations, 

individuals with disabilities, English 

learners, and individuals of each 

gender). 

National not-for-profit organization 

means an entity that meets the 

definition of ‘‘nonprofit’’ under 34 CFR 

77.1(c) and is of national scope, 

meaning that the entity provides 

services in multiple States to a 

significant number or percentage of 

recipients and is supported by staff or 

affiliates in multiple States. 

Open educational resources means 

teaching, learning, and research 

resources that reside in the public 

domain or have been released under an 

intellectual property license that 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 9821 

3See WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook 

(Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently 

be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ 

ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

4See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ 

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

permits their free use or repurposing by 

others. 

Relevant outcome means the student 

outcome or outcomes (or the ultimate 

outcome if not related to students) that 

the proposed project is designed to 

improve, consistent with the specific 

goals of a program. 

Strong evidence of effectiveness 

means that one of the following 

conditions is met: 

(a) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that: 

Meets the WWC Evidence Standards 

without reservations; 3 found a 

statistically significant favorable impact 

on a relevant outcome (as defined in 

this notice) (with no statistically 

significant unfavorable impacts on that 

outcome for relevant populations in the 

study or in other studies of the 

intervention reviewed by and reported 

on by the WWC); includes a sample that 

overlaps with the populations and 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice; and 

includes a large sample (as defined in 

this notice) and a multi-site sample (as 

defined in this notice). (Note: multiple 

studies can cumulatively meet the large 

and multi-site sample requirements as 

long as each study meets the other 

requirements in this paragraph.) 

(b) There are at least two studies of 

the effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed, 

each of which: Meets the WWC 

Evidence Standards with reservations; 4

found a statistically significant favorable 

impact on a relevant outcome (as 

defined in this notice) (with no 

statistically significant unfavorable 

impacts on that outcome for relevant 

populations in the studies or in other 

studies of the intervention reviewed by 

and reported on by the WWC); includes 

a sample that overlaps with the 

populations and settings proposed to 

receive the process, product, strategy, or 

practice; and includes a large sample (as 

defined in this notice) and a multi-site 

sample (as defined in this notice). 

Student achievement means— 

(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) 

A student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under the ESEA; and, as 

appropriate, (2) other measures of 

student learning, such as those 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

definition, provided they are rigorous 

and comparable across schools. 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

Alternative measures of student learning 

and performance, such as student scores 

on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; 

student performance on English 

language proficiency assessments; and 

other measures of student achievement 

that are rigorous and comparable across 

schools. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement (as defined in this 

notice) for an individual student 

between two or more points in time. An 

applicant may also include other 

measures that are rigorous and 

comparable across classrooms. 

Final Selection Criteria: 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary for 

Innovation and Improvement 

establishes the following selection 

criteria for evaluating an application 

under the SEED program. We may apply 

one or more of these criteria, as well as 

other criteria or factors established in 34 

CFR 75.210, in any year in which this 

program is in effect. In the notice 

inviting applications or the application 

package, or both, we will announce the 

maximum possible points assigned to 

each criterion. 

(a) Significance. The Secretary 

considers the significance of the 

proposed project. In determining the 

significance of the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers: 

(1) The significance of the proposed 

project on a national level (as defined in 

this notice). 

(2) The potential contribution of the 

proposed project to the development 

and advancement of teacher and school 

leadership theory, knowledge, and 

practices. 

(3) The importance or magnitude of 

the results or outcomes likely to be 

attained by the proposed project, 

especially improvements in teaching 

and student achievement. 

(b) Quality of the Project Design and 

Services. The Secretary considers the 

quality of the design and services of the 

proposed project. In determining the 

quality of the design and services of the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The extent to which the goals, 

objectives, and outcomes to be achieved 

by the proposed project are clearly 

specified, aligned, and measurable. 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project is part of a comprehensive effort 

to improve teaching and learning and 

support rigorous academic standards for 

students. 

(3) The extent to which the training or 

professional development services to be 

provided by the proposed project will 

be of sufficient quality, intensity, and 

duration to lead to improvements in 

practice among the recipients of those 

services. 

(c) Quality of the Management Plan 

and Personnel. The Secretary considers 

the quality of the management plan for 

the proposed project and of the 

personnel who will carry out the 

proposed project. In determining the 

quality of the management plan and the 

project personnel, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director, key project personnel, 

and project consultants or 

subcontractors. 

(2) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks. 

(3) The extent to which the time 

commitments of the project director and 

other key project personnel are 

appropriate and adequate to meet the 

objectives of the proposed project. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

management plan includes sufficient 

and reasonable resources to effectively 

carry out the proposed project, 

including the project evaluation. 

(d) Sustainability. The Secretary 

considers the adequacy of resources to 

continue the proposed project after the 

grant period ends. In determining the 

adequacy of resources and the potential 

for utility of the proposed project’s 

activities and products by other 

organizations, the Secretary considers: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project is designed to build capacity and 

yield results that will extend beyond the 

period of Federal financial assistance. 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project is likely to yield findings and 

products (such as information, 

materials, processes, or techniques) that 

may be used by other agencies and 

organizations. 

(3) The extent to which the applicant 

will disseminate information about 

results and outcomes of the proposed 

project in ways that will enable others, 

including the public, to use the 

information or strategies. 

(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. In determining the 

quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 

considers one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
9822 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate to the goals, objectives, and 

outcomes of the proposed project. 

(2) The extent to which the evaluation 

includes the use of objective 

performance measures that are clearly 

related to the intended outcomes of the 

project and will produce quantitative 

and qualitative data. 

(3) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide performance feedback and 

permit periodic assessment of progress 

toward achieving intended outcomes. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

evaluation effectively. 

Note: We encourage applicants to review 

the following technical assistance resources 

on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and 

Standards Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ 

wwc/references/idocviewer/ 

doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/ 

NCEE Technical Methods papers: http:// 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. 

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, and selection 

criteria, 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 

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, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria 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. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The costs of carrying out activities 

would be paid for with program funds 

and with matching funds (if any) 

provided by private-sector partners. 

Thus, the costs of implementation 

would not be a burden for any eligible 

applicants, including small entities. 

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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 9823 

Dated: February 7, 2013. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03210 Filed 2–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0089; FRL–9779–3] 

RIN 2060–AO17 

Air Quality: Revision to Definition of 

Volatile Organic Compounds— 

Exclusion of a Group of Four 

Hydrofluoropolyethers (HFPEs) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action revises the 

definition of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). This revision adds four 

chemical compounds to the list of 

compounds excluded from the 

definition of VOC on the basis that each 

of these compounds makes a negligible 

contribution to tropospheric ozone 

formation. These compounds consist of 

four hydrofluoropolyethers (HFPEs) 

which are identified as HCF2OCF2H 

(also known as HFE–134), 

HCF2OCF2OCF2H (also known as HFE– 

236cal2), HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also 

known as HFE–338pcc13), and 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also known 

as H-Galden 1040X or H-Galden ZT 130 

(or 150 or 180)). If an entity uses or 

produces any of these four HFPE 

compounds (these being in the family of 

products known by the trade name HGalden) and is subject to the EPA 

regulations limiting the use of VOC in 

a product, limiting the VOC emissions 

from a facility, or otherwise controlling 

the use of VOC for purposes related to 

attaining the ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS), then the 

compound will not be counted as a VOC 

in determining whether these regulatory 

obligations have been met. This action 

may also affect whether any of these 

compounds is considered a VOC for 

state regulatory purposes, depending on 

whether the state relies on the EPA’s 

definition of VOC. In addition, the EPA 

is making certain technical corrections 

to the current list of exempt 

compounds. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on 

March 14, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0089. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0089, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 

566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Sanders, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Policy Division, State and Local 

Programs Group, Mail Code (C539–01), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711; 

telephone (919) 541–3356 or fax (919) 

541–0824; and email address: 

sanders.dave@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

final rule include, but are not 

necessarily limited to, states (typically 

state air pollution control agencies) that 

control VOCs, and industries listed in 

the following table involved in the 

manufacture or use of fire suppressants 

and specialized refrigerants in 

secondary loop refrigeration systems for 

heat transfer. Table 1 is not intended to 

be exhaustive, but rather provides a 

guide for readers regarding entities 

likely to be affected by this action. This 

table lists the types of entities that the 

EPA is now aware of that could 

potentially be affected by this action. 

Other types of entities not listed in the 

table could also be affected. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

This action has no substantial direct 

effects on industry because it does not 

impose any new mandates on these 

entities, but, to the contrary, removes 

these four HFPEs from the regulatory 

definition of VOC. 

This final rule is applicable to all 

manufacturers, distributors and users of 

these chemical compounds as identified 

in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES

Industry 

group SIC a NAICSb

Fire Suppression 2899 325998, 423990 

Refrigerants .. 2869, 3585 

238220, 

336111 

aStandard Industrial Classification. 

b North American Industry Classification 

System. 

B. How is this preamble organized? 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. How is this preamble organized? 

II. Proposed Action 

A. The EPA’s VOC Exemption Policy 

B. Petition to List the Following 

Compounds as Exempt: HCF2OCF2H 

(HFE 134), HCF2OCF2OCF2H (HFE– 

236cal2), HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (HFE– 

338pcc13), and 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (H-Galden 

1040X and H-Galden ZT 130 (or 150 or 

180)) 

C. Likelihood of Risk to Human Health or 

the Environment 

D. Conclusion 

III. Public Comments 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Executive Order 13563: 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Judicial Review 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES