Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 32073 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves the establishment of a safety 

zone. An environmental analysis 

checklist and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0214 as follows: 

§ 165.T09–0214 Safety zone; Conneaut 

Festival Fireworks, Conneaut Harbor, 

Conneaut, OH. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: An 840 ft radius 

in part of the waters of Conneaut Harbor 

from position +41°58′2.22′′ N, 

¥80°33′39.89′′ W. 

(b) Effective and enforcement period. 

This zone will be effective and enforced 

from 9:30 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 

3, 2011. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his onscene representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port 

Buffalo or his on-scene representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port is any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer who has been designated by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

The on-scene representative of the 

Captain of the Port will be aboard either 

a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary 

vessel. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo 

or his on-scene representative to obtain 

permission to do so. The Captain of the 

Port or his on-scene representative may 

be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 

(5) Vessel operators given permission 

to enter or operate in the safety zone 

must comply with all directions given to 

them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo 

or his on-scene representative. 

Dated: May 11, 2011. 

R.S. Burchell, 

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

Port Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13758 Filed 6–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2011–OII–0001] 

Investing in Innovation Fund 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final revisions to priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement amends the final 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria under the Investing in 

Innovation Fund (i3) program as 

established in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria (2010 i3 NFP) that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 12, 2010. The 2010 i3 NFP 

established specific priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria to be used in evaluating grant 

applications for the i3 program. This 

document provides the Secretary with 

additional flexibility in using the 

priorities and selection criteria for i3 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2011 

and subsequent years. In addition, the 

document modifies the requirements on 

the ‘‘Limits on Grant Awards’’ and ‘‘Cost 

Sharing or Matching.’’ The revisions we 

establish in this document respond to 

specific lessons learned from the first 

competition of the i3 program in FY 

2010 and allow the Department to 

simplify and improve the design of the 

i3 program to better achieve its purposes 

and goals. 

DATES: Effective Date: These revisions to 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria are effective July 5, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thelma Leenhouts, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 4W302, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–7122; or by 

e-mail: i3@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: The Investing in 

Innovation Fund, established under 

section 14007 of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
32074 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

provides funding to (1) local 

educational agencies (LEAs), and (2) 

nonprofit organizations in partnership 

with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a 

consortium of schools. The purpose of 

the i3 program is to provide competitive 

grants to applicants with a record of 

improving student achievement and 

attainment in order to expand the 

implementation of, and investment in, 

innovative practices that are 

demonstrated to have an impact on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, 

increasing high school graduation rates, 

or increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates. 

Grants awarded under the i3 program 

(1) Allow eligible entities to expand and 

develop innovative practices that can 

serve as models of best practices, (2) 

allow eligible entities to carry out that 

work in partnership with the private 

sector and the philanthropic 

community, and (3) support eligible 

entities in identifying and documenting 

best practices that can be shared and 

taken to scale based on demonstrated 

success. 

Program Authority: American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

Division A, Section 14007, Public Law 

111–5. 

Applicable Regulations: (a) The 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 

84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The notice 

of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

this program, published in the Federal 

Register on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 

12004–12071). 

Background: The Department 

published a proposed notice of revisions 

to priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria (2011 Notice of Proposed i3 

Revisions) in the Federal Register on 

January 10, 2011 (76 FR 1412–1415). 

That notice contained background 

information and our reasons for the 

proposed revisions. 

There is one difference between the 

proposed revisions to priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria and 

these final revisions to priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the 2011 Notice of 

Proposed i3 Revisions, 18 parties, 

including nonprofit organizations, 

professional associations, and private 

citizens, submitted comments. 

We address general comments and 

then discuss other substantive issues 

under the title of the item to which they 

pertain. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments received 

on, and any changes to, the revisions to 

the priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria since publication of 

the 2011 Notice of Proposed i3 

Revisions follows. 

General Comments 

Comment: While one commenter 

endorsed all of the proposed revisions, 

a few commenters expressed 

dissatisfaction with the overall structure 

and operation of the i3 program, stating 

that the proposed revisions were 

insufficient and would not improve the 

program. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the feedback on how the i3 

program could be improved. However, 

the proposed revisions to the priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria 

were not intended to substantially 

change the program but, instead, were 

intended to give the Secretary flexibility 

in a few discrete areas (selecting 

priorities and selection criteria and 

adjusting the private-sector matching 

percentages on a competition-bycompetition basis) and to modify our 

requirement on grant award limits. We 

believe that by establishing the 

flexibility to select the most appropriate 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria for each type of grant (Scale-up, 

Validation, or Development) under this 

program in any year in which the 

Department makes new i3 awards, the 

Secretary will be able to use the i3 

program to meet the evolving needs of 

the American education system. A 

substantial revision of the structure and 

operation of the i3 program could be 

proposed by the Department in the 

future. If the Department decides to 

propose such a revision, the concerns 

raised and suggestions made in 

comments regarding the overall 

structure of the i3 program would be 

considered. 

Changes: None. 

Priorities 

Comment: A few commenters stated 

that the Department should use all four 

absolute priorities in all future i3 

competitions. One commenter stated 

that the integrity of the i3 program relies 

on whole-scale reform that can be 

achieved only by applying all four 

absolute priorities in all future 

competitions. One commenter noted 

that the priorities established under the 

2010 i3 NFP are generally broad and 

would be relevant in most years of the 

foreseeable future, which would make it 

unnecessary to exclude a priority in a 

given year. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that all four absolute priorities are 

important to whole-scale education 

reform. However, the Department also 

recognizes that one or more of the four 

absolute priorities may be relatively 

more important in a given year. With 

the flexibility to select the absolute 

priorities for a given i3 competition, the 

Secretary can consider and select 

priorities that best support the needs of 

the American education system in a 

given year. 

Additionally, although applicants 

selected for funding in the FY 2010 

competition officially applied under one 

absolute priority, they tended to address 

several of the absolute priorities in 

responding to the selection criteria. 

Therefore, even if all four absolute 

priorities established in the 2010 i3 NFP 

are not used in a given year’s 

competition, it is still likely that we 

would receive applications addressing 

the four reform areas. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the applications funded in the FY 2010 

i3 competition under Absolute Priority 

1: Innovations that Support Effective 

Teachers and Principals focused 

predominantly on teachers instead of 

principals, resulting in minimal funding 

of efforts to improve school leadership. 

The commenter recommended that the 

Department separate Absolute Priority 1 

into two separate priorities—one 

focused on teachers and one focused on 

principals. 

Discussion: Absolute Priority 1 

focuses on practices, strategies, or 

programs that increase the number or 

percentages of highly effective teachers 

or principals (or reduce the number or 

percentages of ineffective teachers or 

principals), especially for high-need 

students. Under this priority, applicants 

already may determine whether their 

proposed project will focus on teachers 

or principals. 

The 2011 Notice of Proposed i3 

Revisions did not propose any changes 

to the text of the absolute priorities 

established in the 2010 i3 NFP. For this 

reason, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to make changes to the text 

of the priorities through this notice. 

However, when designing future i3 

competitions, the Department may 

consider revising Absolute Priority 1 or 

developing a priority focused 

exclusively on school leadership. If in a 

future competition the Department 

decides to propose such a new priority 

or revise an existing priority, rather than 

select from the established priorities, 

the Department would comply with any 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Changes: None. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 32075 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended additional priorities for 

the Department to use in future i3 

competitions, including priorities on 

promoting diversity, expanding learning 

time, supporting school start-up models, 

and using technology to improve 

instruction. 

Discussion: While the Department 

recognizes the importance of the issues 

and topics mentioned by the 

commenters, this notice is not intended 

to specify the absolute or competitive 

preference priorities that will be used in 

a given year’s i3 competition. Rather, 

the purpose of this notice is to provide 

the Secretary with the flexibility to use 

any of the absolute or competitive 

preference priorities announced in the 

2010 i3 NFP in any future i3 

competition. When designing future i3 

competitions, the Department may 

consider using other priorities, 

including the priorities recommended 

by the commenters as well as the 

Secretary’s Supplemental Priorities, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 15, 2011 (75 FR 78486– 

78511). If in a future competition the 

Department decides to propose a new 

priority or revise an established i3 

priority, rather than select from existing 

priorities, the Department would 

comply with any applicable rulemaking 

requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed support for giving the 

Secretary the flexibility to use one or 

more of the established competitive 

preference priorities in a given year’s 

competition. One commenter requested 

that the Department use this flexibility 

to remove Competitive Preference 

Priority 8: Innovations that Serve 

Schools in Rural LEAs because, 

according to the commenter, it 

disadvantages all other applicants. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for providing the 

Secretary with the flexibility to use one 

or more of the established priorities in 

a given year’s competition. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

recommendation that the Department 

use the flexibility afforded under this 

notice to remove Competitive Preference 

Priority 8: Innovations that Serve 

Schools in Rural LEAs, we note that the 

flexibility provided enables the 

Secretary to select priorities on a 

competition-by-competition basis—that 

is, through the notice inviting 

applications, not this notice. In any 

given year, Competitive Preference 

Priority 8 may be appropriate because it 

acknowledges that solutions to 

educational challenges may be different 

in rural areas than in urban and 

suburban communities and that there is 

a need for solutions to unique rural 

challenges. The Department aims to 

ensure that projects serving high-needs 

students in diverse contexts can 

compete for i3 funding. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

opposed giving the Secretary the 

flexibility to use one or more of the 

established competitive preference 

priorities in a given year’s competition. 

One commenter recommended that the 

Department use all of the competitive 

preference priorities established in the 

2010 i3 NFP in all future competitions. 

Another commenter opposed the 

proposed revision because it would 

allow any future Secretary to determine 

that early learning is not a priority in a 

given year. 

Discussion: In the FY 2010 i3 

competition, the Department identified 

four competitive preference priorities 

aligned with the Department’s reform 

goals. Although we recognize the 

importance of these priorities, we 

appreciate that the needs of the 

American education system may 

change. We believe it is important that 

the Secretary have the flexibility to 

consider multiple factors in determining 

whether to award competitive 

preference points in a given 

competition. This notice allows for that 

consideration by providing the 

Secretary with flexibility to use one or 

more of the competitive preference 

priorities established in the 2010 i3 

NFP. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed support for providing the 

Secretary with the flexibility to use one 

or more of the established priorities in 

a given year’s competition, but 

recommended that the Department 

provide the public with the opportunity 

to comment on the selected priorities for 

each year’s competition. 

Discussion: Under the General 

Education Provisions Acts (GEPA) and 

the Administrative Procedures Act 

(APA), the Department, in most cases, is 

required to seek public comment on 

proposed rules, including proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for a grant 

competition, and then publish a final 

rule along with responses to the 

comments received on the proposed 

rule. The Department already sought, 

received, and responded to public 

comment on the absolute and 

competitive preference priorities 

established in the 2010 i3 NFP. As we 

stated in that notice, in any year in 

which we choose to use these priorities, 

we will announce them in a notice 

inviting applications published in the 

Federal Register. Following this process 

(rather than seeking additional public 

comment on priorities that have already 

gone through rulemaking) allows the 

Department to award grants on a more 

efficient and timely basis. However, if in 

a future competition the Department 

decides to propose a new priority or 

revise an established i3 priority, rather 

than select from existing priorities, the 

Department would comply with any 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Requirement on Limits on Grant 

Awards 

Comment: Many commenters 

supported the proposed change that 

clarified that the limit of two grant 

awards applies to a single year’s 

competition. However, two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

apply the requirement differently 

depending on the type of grant award 

(Scale-up, Validation, or Development). 

One commenter stated that the limit of 

two grant awards in a single year’s 

competition should apply only to 

Validation and Development grants and 

that a Scale-up grantee should not be 

permitted to reapply or receive funding 

for the same or a similar project in the 

year immediately following the year it 

was awarded a grant. In addition, one 

commenter recommended that no 

grantee be allowed to receive more than 

two Scale-up or Validation grants in a 

single year’s competition. 

Discussion: In the 2010 i3 NFP, the 

Department established the requirement 

on the ‘‘Limits on Grant Awards’’ to 

ensure that i3 funds are used to support 

the widest possible array of innovative 

projects. Generally, we agree with 

commenters that the limitations on 

grant awards for Scale-up and 

Validation grantees should be more 

stringent than the limitation on grant 

awards for Development grants because 

of the size of the awards and the 

complexity of these grants. As a result, 

we have modified the proposed 

requirement on the ‘‘Limit on Grant 

Awards’’ to further limit the number of 

Scale-up and Validation grants a grantee 

may receive to only one grant in two 

consecutive years. Thus, if a grantee 

receives a Scale-up or Validation grant 

in one year, that grantee would not be 

eligible to receive a Scale-up or 

Validation grant the next year. 

We have also modified the 

requirement on ‘‘Limits on Grant 

Awards’’ to clarify that the limit applies 

to new grant awards made in a year in 

which the Department funds down the 

slate from a prior year’s competition, 

but not to continuation awards. The 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
32076 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

purpose of this requirement is to limit 

the number of new awards received by 

a single grantee, whether through a 

competition or funding down the slate 

from a prior year’s competition; the 

purpose is not to limit possible 

continuation awards. 

Changes: We have revised the 

proposed ‘‘Limits on Grant Awards’’ 

requirement to clarify that the limitation 

applies to new awards. Specifically, the 

revised requirement states that (a) No 

grantee may receive more than two new 

grant awards of any type under the i3 

program in a single year; (b) In any twoyear period, no grantee may receive 

more than one new Scale-up or 

Validation grant; and (c) No grantee may 

receive more than $55 million in new 

grant awards under the i3 program in a 

single year. 

Comment: One commenter opposed 

the proposed change to limit an 

applicant to two grant awards in a single 

year’s competition. The commenter 

stated that limiting grant awards in only 

a single year’s competition would allow 

successful applicants to pull further 

ahead of unsuccessful applicants and, 

thus, would increase the resource gap 

among applicants. 

Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in 

this notice, in addition to clarifying that 

no grantee may receive more than two 

grant awards in a single year, the 

Department further modified the 

requirement on the ‘‘Limits on Grant 

Awards’’ so that no Scale-up or 

Validation grantee can receive more 

than one Scale-up or Validation grant in 

any two-year period. The Department 

appreciates the commenter’s concern 

and believes that this additional change 

appropriately balances the program’s 

purpose of supporting the 

implementation of and investment in 

innovative practices that are 

demonstrated to improve student 

academic achievement and attainment 

with the desire to support a wide array 

of innovative projects. 

With regard to Development grants, 

we note that most of the i3 applications 

submitted in the FY 2010 i3 competition 

were applications for Development 

grants. Given the high volume of 

applications, and our expectation that 

the competition for Development grants 

will remain highly competitive, we are 

not establishing this same limitation on 

Development grantees. 

Changes: As noted elsewhere in this 

notice, we have revised the ‘‘Limits on 

Grant Awards’’ requirement to state that 

no grantee may receive more than two 

new grant awards of any type under the 

i3 program in a single year; in any twoyear period, no grantee may receive 

more than one new Scale-up or 

Validation grant; and no grantee may 

receive more than $55 million in new 

grant awards under the i3 program in a 

single year. 

Requirement on Cost-Sharing or 

Matching 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

revisions to the ‘‘Cost Sharing and 

Matching’’ requirement, which provides 

the Secretary with the flexibility to 

determine the required amount of 

private-sector matching funds or in-kind 

contributions that an eligible applicant 

must obtain for an i3 grant in a given 

year. One commenter stated that 

replacing a ‘‘one-size fits all’’ policy with 

this flexibility to determine the privatesector match on a more customized 

basis would broaden participation in 

future competitions. 

In addition, two commenters 

provided recommendations on how the 

Department might use the proposed 

flexibility to require different matching 

levels for the different types of i3 grant 

awards (Scale-up, Validation, or 

Development). One commenter 

encouraged the Department to consider 

limiting the percentage of private-sector 

matches required for Scale-up grantees 

because they would have already 

received a significant level of private 

funding. In contrast, another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

maintain a significant matching 

requirement for Scale-up and Validation 

grants, but that a lower matching 

requirement be set for Development 

grants. 

Discussion: The ‘‘Cost Sharing or 

Matching’’ requirement contained in the 

2011 Notice of Proposed i3 Revisions 

states that to be eligible for an award, an 

eligible applicant must obtain privatesector matching funds or in-kind 

contributions equal to an amount that 

the Secretary will specify in the notice 

inviting applications for a particular i3 

competition. We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for this revision to 

the ‘‘Cost Sharing or Matching’’ 

requirement. 

With respect to the comments 

requesting that we further modify this 

requirement to provide for different 

matching levels for the different types of 

grants, we do not believe that 

establishing fixed matching levels in 

this notice is appropriate. Furthermore, 

such a modification is not necessary 

because the proposed revision allows 

the Department to establish different 

matching levels for different types of 

grants when designing future i3 

competitions. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed general support for the 

proposed changes to the ‘‘Cost Sharing 

or Matching’’ requirement in the 2011 

Proposed i3 Revisions, but 

recommended that the Department also 

establish a ceiling on the private-sector 

match that could be required under any 

i3 competition. 

Discussion: As noted in the 2010 i3 

NFP, the Department considers the 

private-sector match to be a strong 

indicator of the potential for the 

scalability and sustainability of a 

proposed project over time. We decline 

to set a ceiling on the private-sector 

match because doing so would limit the 

Department’s flexibility to leverage 

public- and private-sector investments 

in education. The flexibility offered by 

the revision will allow the Department 

to consider multiple factors when 

determining the required private-sector 

match, including the economic climate 

or the amount of time available for the 

highest-rated applicants to secure their 

private-sector matches. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that the Department allow local 

educational agency (LEA) funds or other 

public funds to be used to meet the 

matching requirement. One commenter 

stated that this change would encourage 

LEAs to demonstrate their commitment 

to i3 projects, which would enhance the 

sustainability of those projects. Another 

commenter stated that it may be 

difficult for potential applicants to 

secure sizeable private-sector 

contributions and that undue reliance 

on the private sector could result in 

LEAs becoming overly beholden to 

private funders. 

Discussion: Section 14007(b)(3) of the 

ARRA specifically requires a privatesector match for this program. Thus, an 

eligible applicant may not use funding 

from other Federal programs or other 

public sources (including an LEA’s own 

funds) to satisfy the statutory ‘‘Cost 

Sharing or Matching’’ requirement. 

However, nothing prohibits an eligible 

applicant from securing public funds in 

addition to the required private-sector 

matching funds or in-kind 

contributions. In addition, eligible 

applicants can establish the terms and 

conditions of their private-sector 

partnerships and diversify the sources 

from which they seek support for i3 

projects in order to avoid becoming 

unduly dependent on or beholden to 

any particular source or type of funding. 

The Department understands the 

commenter’s concern about the 

challenges of securing significant 

private-sector investments. This 

concern, however, is addressed by the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 32077 

flexibility provided in the ‘‘Cost Sharing 

or Matching’’ requirement, which allows 

the Secretary to determine the required 

amount of private-sector matching funds 

or in-kind contributions that eligible 

applicants must obtain under an i3 

competition in a given year. We expect 

this determination to be based on an 

assessment of the capacity and 

resources available in that particular 

year. Moreover, an eligible applicant 

continues to have the option, under this 

requirement, to request in its 

application that the Secretary decrease 

the private-sector match amount it must 

provide. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter opposed 

the proposed revisions to the ‘‘Cost 

Sharing or Matching’’ requirement. 

Specifically, the commenter opposed 

providing the Secretary with the 

flexibility to determine the required 

amount of private-sector matching funds 

or in-kind contributions that an eligible 

applicant must obtain for an i3 

competition in a given year. The 

commenter stated that requiring a 

private-sector partnership would be a 

violation of State and local laws. 

Discussion: As noted elsewhere in 

this notice, an eligible applicant must 

demonstrate that it has established one 

or more partnerships with the private 

sector and that the private sector will 

provide matching funds. The ‘‘Cost 

Sharing or Matching’’ requirement is 

based on the cost-sharing and matching 

requirement in the authorizing 

legislation for the i3 program. Moreover, 

the commenter did not cite, and the 

Department is not aware of, any State or 

local laws that prohibit State and local 

governmental entities or private 

organizations from securing a private 

sector matching requirement in a 

Federal grant program. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criteria 

Comment: A few commenters 

supported permitting the Department, in 

establishing selection criteria used in 

grant competitions conducted under the 

i3 program, to choose selection criteria 

and factors—(i) From those established 

in the 2010 i3 NFP for the i3 program, 

(ii) from the menu of general selection 

criteria in the Education Department 

General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.210, (iii) based 

on statutory provisions in accordance 

with 34 CFR 75.209, or (iv) from any 

combination of (i) through (iii) for 

competitions in FY 2011 and in 

subsequent years. However, one 

commenter encouraged the Department 

to maintain the selection criteria that 

focus on strength of research and 

evaluation. 

Some commenters encouraged the 

Department to publish the specific 

selection criteria for a given competition 

as far in advance as possible. Two 

commenters recommended that the 

Department provide the public with an 

opportunity to comment on the 

selection criteria for each year’s 

competition. 

Discussion: We decline to establish 

specific mandatory selection criteria 

and factors within each criterion that 

must be used in all i3 competitions. As 

we discussed in the 2011 Notice of 

Proposed i3 Revisions, the purpose of 

the revisions concerning the use of the 

i3 selection criteria is to provide the 

Secretary with the flexibility to choose 

the selection criteria, and the factors 

included under each criterion, in order 

to better align the selection criteria used 

for the different types of grants (Scaleup, Validation, and Development) with 

the critical aims of that specific grant 

type and to better ensure that i3 projects 

address the most critical needs of 

education in a given year. With regard 

to the comment requesting that we 

maintain the selection criterion on 

strength of research evidence, we note 

that whether or not the Department uses 

this selection criterion, the evidence 

standards requirement must be met in 

order for an application to be eligible to 

receive an award. Specifically, an 

application for a Scale-up grant must be 

supported by strong evidence (as 

defined in the 2010 i3 NFP), an 

application for a Validation grant must 

be supported by moderate evidence (as 

defined in the 2010 i3 NFP), and an 

application for a Development grant 

must be supported by a reasonable 

hypothesis. 

Regarding the recommendation that 

the specific selection criteria for each 

competition be submitted for public 

comment, the Department already 

sought, received, and responded to 

public comments on the selection 

criteria established in the 2010 i3 NFP, 

as well as the general selection criteria 

in EDGAR. However, in any year in 

which we choose to use these selection 

criteria, we will announce them in a 

notice inviting applications published 

in the Federal Register. Following this 

process (rather than seeking additional 

public comment on priorities that have 

already gone through rulemaking) 

allows the Department to award grants 

on a more efficient and timely basis. 

However, if in a future competition the 

Department decides to propose new 

selection criteria or revise the 

established selection criteria rather than 

select from among them, the Department 

would comply with all applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the proposed revision to 

the selection criteria would not simplify 

or improve the design of the program. 

The commenter further stated that the 

optional menu of EDGAR criteria 

suggests that the Department is unsure 

of the direction of the i3 program and 

suggested that applicants would prefer 

more predictability and responsiveness. 

Discussion: Section 75.200 of EDGAR 

establishes that, to evaluate the 

applications for new grants, the 

Secretary may use: (i) The selection 

criteria established in § 75.209, (ii) the 

selection criteria in program-specific 

regulations, (iii) the selection criteria 

established under § 75.210, and (iv) any 

combination of criteria from (i) through 

(iii) of that section. We disagree that the 

proposed revision would not simplify or 

improve the design of the i3 program. 

We note that it is not unusual for 

Department programs to use the EDGAR 

selection criteria found in § 75.210 or 

developed under § 75.209 or to use 

different selection criteria in a given 

year. We believe that having greater 

flexibility to choose the selection 

criteria and the factors included in each 

criterion will allow the Department to 

simplify and better align the 

competition design and priorities for the 

three types of grants for a particular 

year’s competition thereby resulting in 

projects that address the most pressing 

needs of the American educational 

system at that time. 

Changes: None. 

Comments Not Directly Related to 

Proposed Changes 

We received a number of comments 

on issues that were unrelated to the 

specific proposals in the 2011 Notice of 

Proposed i3 Revisions. These comments 

focused on the overall design of the i3 

program. Although the Department 

previously addressed these issues in the 

2009 i3 notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria or in the 2010 i3 NFP, we want 

to be responsive and transparent in 

establishing rules under the i3 program 

and, therefore, are addressing these 

comments in this notice. 

Comment: Three commenters 

provided recommendations on who may 

apply for and receive an i3 grant award. 

One commenter encouraged the 

Department to continue to allow 

nonprofit organizations in partnership 

with LEAs or schools to be eligible 

applicants. In contrast, another 

commenter recommended that the 

Department allow only LEAs to be 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
32078 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

eligible applicants for Development 

grants. Another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

allow for-profit organizations to be 

eligible applicants or official partners 

that may receive subgrants. 

Discussion: Section 14007(a)(1) of the 

ARRA specifies the types of entities that 

are eligible to apply for funding under 

this program. Entities eligible for i3 

grants are: 

(a) An LEA 

(b) A partnership between a nonprofit 

organization and— 

(1) One or more LEAs; or 

(2) A consortium of schools. 

The Department has no authority to 

revise or expand these statutorily 

prescribed eligibility requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

redefine the role of the official partner, 

a term that is defined in the 2010 i3 

NFP, so that schools without a track 

record of success can participate in 

future i3 projects. 

Discussion: A low-performing LEA or 

school may participate in projects under 

this program as either an official partner 

(as defined in the 2010 i3 NFP) or other 

partner (as defined in the 2010 i3 NFP). 

While an LEA that applies for funds 

under section 14007(a)(1)(A) of the 

ARRA must meet the requirements in 

section 14007(b)(1) through (b)(3) of the 

ARRA, as amended by section 307 of 

Division D of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 

117), nothing in the statute or the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria for this program 

prohibits such an eligible LEA from 

proposing a project that involves the 

LEA partnering with other partners, 

including other LEAs. Such other 

partners may be low-performing LEAs 

or schools. In addition, a partnership 

between a non-profit organization and 

one or more LEAs or a consortium of 

schools could include one or more 

LEAs, either as an official partner (as 

defined in the 2010 i3 NFP) or as an 

other partner (as defined in the 2010 i3 

NFP) that does not meet the eligibility 

requirements. This is because such a 

partnership is deemed to have met the 

eligibility requirements in section 

14007(b)(1) through (b)(3) of the ARRA 

if the nonprofit organization in the 

partnership satisfies the requirements in 

section 14007(c) of the ARRA. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the term ‘‘high-need student’’ should be 

deleted from the 2010 i3 NFP because 

the term is defined too broadly and does 

not focus solely on reducing the 

achievement gap among the subgroups 

of students specified in the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

as amended (ESEA) (e.g., economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, students 

with disabilities, and limited English 

proficient students). 

Discussion: The 2010 i3 NFP 

established a requirement that all 

eligible applicants implement practices, 

strategies, or programs for high-need 

students. The 2010 i3 NFP also defined 

a high-need student as a student at risk 

of educational failure or otherwise in 

need of special assistance and support. 

This requirement and definition of highneed student were not within the scope 

of the 2011 Notice of Proposed i3 

Revisions. However, as noted in the 

2010 i3 NFP, we believe that this 

program’s focus on funding projects that 

serve high-need students is consistent 

with the goal of this program, which is 

to improve student academic 

achievement and attainment. We believe 

that it is important to improve the 

academic achievement and attainment 

of any student at risk of educational 

failure. In addition, we note that the 

definition of high-need student 

included in the 2010 i3 NFP is 

appropriate because it also includes 

students who attend high-minority 

schools, who are far below grade level, 

who are over-age and under-credited, 

who have left school before receiving a 

regular high school diploma, who are at 

risk of not graduating with a regular 

high school diploma on time, who are 

homeless, who are in foster care, and 

who have been incarcerated. These 

students typically have very high needs, 

but are not included among the 

subgroups of students specified in the 

ESEA. Consequently, we do not believe 

the definition of high-need student in 

the 2010 i3 NFP is too broad. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department set 

aside more funding for early-stage 

innovation or Development grants. 

Discussion: As noted in the 2010 i3 

NFP, the Department has found that the 

structure of this program and the use of 

three categories of grants appropriately 

balance support for the development of 

promising yet relatively untested ideas 

with the growth and scaling of practices 

that have made demonstrable 

improvements in student achievement 

and attainment outcomes. The 

Department will consider multiple 

factors, including the quality of the 

applications received and the amount of 

funds available for new grant awards in 

a given year, when determining the 

number of awards made under each 

type of grant. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters opposed 

any additional funding for the 

Department’s innovative discretionary 

grant programs. These commenters 

argued that formula grants are a more 

reliable stream of funding for LEAs and 

are particularly beneficial for small and 

rural LEAs that often lack the resources 

to compete for discretionary funds. Both 

commenters expressed concern with the 

Department’s lack of emphasis on the 

needs of rural schools and one 

commenter recommended that a specific 

set-aside be available to rural States or 

LEAs that demonstrate innovative 

initiatives that are expressly applicable 

in rural settings. 

Discussion: The Department 

understands and shares the 

commenters’ concerns about the unique 

challenges of schools in rural LEAs. In 

the FY 2010 i3 competition, we 

addressed those challenges by providing 

up to two competitive preference 

priority points for innovations that are 

designed to focus on the unique 

challenges of high-needs students in 

schools in rural LEAs. The other 

competitive preference priorities were 

awarded only one point. As with all of 

the Department’s competitions, we have 

learned from experience, and we 

understand that more needs to be done 

under the i3 program to adequately 

address the needs of rural States and 

LEAs. In future i3 competitions, we will 

increase our outreach efforts to rural 

applicants as well as our efforts to 

recruit peer reviewers who are from 

rural areas or who have other 

experience working in rural schools and 

communities. We also hope that the 

flexibility this notice establishes in 

terms of choosing selection criteria and 

factors will allow the Department to 

simplify the application, thus 

minimizing the burden on schools and 

LEAs with limited resources. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the selection criterion on 

strategy and capacity to scale is an 

impediment to applicants from rural 

America because the criterion requires 

applicants to serve 100,000, 250,000, 

and 500,000 students with their 

proposed i3 projects. The commenter 

encouraged the Department to reward 

scale-up strategies that are appropriate 

to the project instead of rewarding 

applicants that propose to serve an 

arbitrary number of students. 

Discussion: The i3 program does not 

include requirements for scaling 

proposed projects to a specific number 

of students. Under selection criterion 

E(4) of the 2010 i3 NFP, the Secretary 

considers cost estimates both— (a) for 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 32079 

the total number of students to be 

served by the proposed project, which is 

determined by the eligible applicant, 

and (b) for the eligible applicant or 

others (including other partners) to 

reach the scaling targets for the 

respective grant types (100,000, 250,000, 

and 500,000 students for Development 

and Validation grants; and 100,000, 

500,000, and 1,000,000 students for 

Scale-up grants). An eligible applicant is 

free to propose the number of students 

it will serve under its project, consistent 

with its project goals, capacity, and 

resources, and is expected to serve that 

number of students by the end of the 

grant period. The scaling targets, in 

contrast, are theoretical and allow peer 

reviewers to assess the general costeffectiveness of proposed projects, 

whether implemented by the eligible 

applicant or by any other entity. 

Grantees are not required to reach these 

numbers during the grant period or to 

provide a plan to do so. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

provide more emphasis on ‘‘social return 

on investment’’ than unit cost and scale 

numbers. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that ‘‘social return on investment’’ 

would provide valuable information 

about a project’s cost-effectiveness. 

However, the Department recognizes the 

challenges of calculating ‘‘social return 

on investment’’ and believes that 

requiring such a measure would 

increase the burden on applicants. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged the Department to allow 

applicants to modify existing practices, 

strategies, or programs as part of their 

plans to scale and sustain their 

proposed projects. 

Discussion: As noted in the 2010 i3 

NFP, evidence of the effectiveness of a 

proposed practice, strategy, or program 

will be stronger in terms of internal 

validity if the prior research applies to 

the same innovation the eligible 

applicant is proposing, rather than to a 

similar innovation or to a component of 

the proposed strategy or program. The 

2010 i3 NFP does not prohibit 

applicants from proposing in their 

applications to modify an existing 

practice, strategy, or program as part of 

their plans to scale or sustain the 

project. However, modification and 

adaptation of existing, well-tested 

practices for new contexts may mean 

that strong evidence of effectiveness in 

the original context is only moderate 

evidence of effectiveness in the new 

context. To the extent possible, if an 

eligible applicant is proposing to modify 

or adapt an existing, well-tested 

practice, then it should provide a 

rationale for the proposed changes in its 

application and justify why those 

changes are desirable or necessary in 

order to improve the effectiveness of the 

project or to scale or sustain the project, 

and why the eligible applicant believes 

those changes would not invalidate the 

prior evidence of effectiveness. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

submitted recommendations regarding 

the strong and moderate evidence 

requirements for the Scale-up and 

Validation grants. One commenter 

encouraged the Department to use the 

changes proposed in the 2011 Notice of 

Proposed i3 Revisions that provide for 

additional flexibility in using selection 

criteria in order to apply selection 

criteria that accurately reflect the state 

of research in the field of education. 

Two commenters stated that the 

current evidence requirements 

established in the 2010 i3 NFP focus too 

heavily on experimental and quasiexperimental studies that are typically 

possible only for more mature 

organizations and recommended that 

the Department give more weight to 

publicly reported data. One commenter 

expressed concern that the current 

evidence requirements are overly 

restrictive and discourage LEAs from 

applying on their own because it is rare 

for an LEA to produce research 

evidence. The commenter 

recommended that the Department 

remove the moderate evidence 

requirement for Validation grants and 

instead require proposed projects to be 

supported by evidence of effectiveness 

(e.g., school-based outcome data, 

student progress across performance 

levels, attainment of adequate yearly 

progress (AYP), gains exceeding 

comparable schools, subgroup progress, 

closing achievement gaps, graduation 

and dropout data, course completion, 

engagement indicators, teacher 

evaluation improvements, program 

evaluations). In contrast, another 

commenter encouraged the Department 

to retain the evidence definitions and 

requirements included in the 2010 i3 

NFP and recommended that 

applications proposing evaluation plans 

that would get them to the next level of 

evidence receive additional points. 

Discussion: The 2010 i3 NFP 

established standards of evidence for 

each type of grant under this program. 

Specifically, to be eligible for an award, 

an application for a Scale-up grant must 

be supported by strong evidence (as 

defined in the 2010 i3 NFP), an 

application for a Validation grant must 

be supported by moderate evidence (as 

defined in the 2010 i3 NFP), and an 

application for a Development grant 

must be supported by a reasonable 

hypothesis. The Department believes 

that, given the magnitude of public 

investment and the scale on which 

Scale-up and Validation grants will be 

implemented, the requirements for 

strong and moderate evidence are 

appropriate. Nothing would preclude an 

applicant from using publicly available 

data to meet the moderate and strong 

evidence requirements. The evidence 

standards requirement addresses the 

design of the study as opposed to the 

source of the data used by the study. 

Regarding the comment that the 

Department provide additional points to 

applications proposing evaluation plans 

that would meet the next level of 

evidence, all applications in the FY 

2010 i3 competition were judged in part 

on the quality of the eligible applicant’s 

plan to evaluate its proposed project 

(see Selection Criterion D (Quality of the 

Project Evaluation) of the 2010 i3 NFP). 

The Department believes that this 

selection criterion adequately rewards 

applications with well-designed 

evaluation plans. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

‘‘intervention’’ and ‘‘service’’ to the list of 

‘‘proposed practice, strategy, or 

program,’’ in every place where the list 

occurs in the i3 priorities and selection 

criteria. The commenter expressed 

concern that without these revisions 

applicants might assume that projects 

focused on interventions or services 

could not be funded under the i3 

program. 

Discussion: The Department 

understands that, in the context of the 

i3 program, a ‘‘practice, strategy, or 

program’’ includes an ‘‘intervention’’ or 

‘‘service.’’ 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

clarification regarding the Department’s 

policies on open educational resources 

and intellectual property. 

Discussion: The Department’s 

regulations on project materials and 

copyrightable intellectual property 

produced with grant funds apply to 

grants awarded under this program. 

Specifically, under 34 CFR 75.621, 

grantees may copyright project materials 

produced with Department grant funds. 

However, under 34 CFR 74.36 and 

80.34, the Department retains a nonexclusive and irrevocable license to 

reproduce, publish, or otherwise use 

those project materials for government 

purposes. 

Changes: None. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
32080 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment: A few commenters 

requested that the Department provide 

additional information on the i3 

application process, including the 

requirements for securing an 

independent evaluator and the 

assumptions under which the 

Department may standardize 

application scores. One commenter 

thanked the Department for its efforts to 

provide a transparent application 

process and noted areas where the 

process might be improved, including 

by streamlining the application and 

incorporating responses to frequently 

asked questions into future notices 

inviting applications for the i3 program. 

One commenter recommended the 

Department provide additional training 

as well as audits to ensure consistent 

scoring among reviewers. 

Discussion: The Department 

maintains an i3 Web site that addresses 

many of the issues highlighted by the 

comments. The Department’s i3 Web 

site is available at http://www2.ed.gov/ 

programs/innovation/index.html. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priorities 

The Secretary may use any of the 

priorities established in the notice of 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria (2010 

i3 NFP) that was published in the 

Federal Register on March 12, 2010 (75 

FR 12004–12071) when establishing the 

priorities for a particular i3 competition. 

We may apply one or more of these 

priorities in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Final Requirements 

The Secretary modifies the following 

requirements for the i3 program: 

Limits on Grant Awards: (a) No 

grantee may receive more than two new 

grant awards of any type under the i3 

program in a single year; (b) In any twoyear period, no grantee may receive 

more than one new Scale-up or 

Validation grant; and (c) No grantee may 

receive more than $55 million in new 

grant awards under the i3 program in a 

single year. 

Cost Sharing or Matching: To be 

eligible for an award, an eligible 

applicant must demonstrate that it has 

established one or more partnerships 

with an entity or organization in the 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations, and that 

the entity or organization in the private 

sector will provide matching funds in 

order to help bring project results to 

scale. An eligible applicant must obtain 

matching funds or in-kind donations 

equal to an amount that the Secretary 

will specify in the notice inviting 

applications for the specific i3 

competition. Selected eligible 

applicants must submit evidence of the 

full amount of private-sector matching 

funds following the peer review of 

applications. An award will not be 

made unless the applicant provides 

adequate evidence that the full amount 

of the private-sector match has been 

committed or the Secretary approves the 

eligible applicant’s request to reduce the 

matching-level requirement. 

The Secretary may consider 

decreasing the matching requirement in 

the most exceptional circumstances, on 

a case-by-case basis. An eligible 

applicant that anticipates being unable 

to meet the full amount of the privatesector matching requirement must 

include in its application a request to 

the Secretary to reduce the matchinglevel requirement, along with a 

statement of the basis for the request. 

Final Selection Criteria 

The Secretary may use one or more of 

the selection criteria established in the 

2010 i3 NFP, any of the selection 

criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, criteria based 

on the statutory requirements for the i3 

program in accordance with 34 CFR 

75.209, or any combination of these 

when establishing selection criteria for 

each particular type of grant (Scale-up, 

Validation, and Development) in an i3 

competition. This includes the authority 

to reduce the number of selection 

criteria. In addition, within each 

criterion from these sources, the 

Secretary may further define each 

criterion by selecting one or more 

specific factors within a criterion or 

assigning factors from one criterion, 

from any of those sources, to another 

criterion, in any of those sources. The 

Secretary may apply one or more of 

these criteria in any year in which this 

program is in effect. The Secretary may 

also select one or more of these 

selection criteria to review preapplications, if the Secretary decides to 

invite pre-applications in accordance 

with 34 CFR 75.103. In the notice 

inviting applications, the application 

package, or both, we would announce 

the maximum possible points assigned 

to each criterion. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use these priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866: This notice 

has been reviewed in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. Under the terms 

of the order, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits of this 

proposed regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

this final regulatory action are those 

resulting from statutory requirements 

and those we have determined as 

necessary for administering the 

Department’s discretionary grant 

programs effectively and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this final regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities and 

definitions justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

final regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

We summarized the costs and benefits 

of this regulatory action in the 2011 

Notice of Proposed i3 Revisions, 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 10, 2011 (76 FR1412–1415). 

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 computer diskette) 

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: http://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: http:// 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 32081 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.411A (Scale-up grants), 

84.411B (Validation grants), and 84.411C 

(Development grants). 

Dated: May 26, 2011. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13589 Filed 6–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1987–0002; FRL–9315–8] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Coker’s Sanitation Service 

Landfills Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region III is publishing a 

direct final Deletion of the Coker’s 

Sanitation Service Landfills Superfund 

Site (Site) located in Cheswold, Kent 

County, Delaware, from the National 

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

Delaware, through the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control (DNREC), 

because EPA has determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective August 2, 2011 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by July 5, 

2011. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final deletion in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1987–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov . Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Darius Ostrauskas, 

Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, 

ostrauskas.darius@epa.gov 

• Fax: (215) 814–3002, Attn: Darius 

Ostrauskas 

• Mail: Darius Ostrauskas, Remedial 

Project Manager (3HS23), U.S. EPA 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029 

• Hand delivery: Darius Ostrauskas, 

Remedial Project Manager (3HS23), U.S. 

EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. Phone 

215–814–3360, Business Hours: Monday 

through Friday—9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Such 

deliveries are accepted only 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–HQ–SFUND–1987– 

0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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 you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in the 

hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

U.S. EPA Region III, Library, 2nd Floor, 

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 

19103–2029, (215) 814–5254, Monday 

through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

The Dover Public Library, Reference 

Department, 45 South State Street, 

Dover, DE 19901, (302) 736–7030, 

Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 

9 p.m., Friday and Saturday, 9 a.m. to 

5 p.m., and Sunday, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Darius Ostrauskas, Remedial Project 

Manager (3HS23), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103– 

2029, (215) 814–3360. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region III is publishing this 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Coker’s Sanitation Service Landfills 

Superfund Site from the National 

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL 

constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 

300, which is the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. 

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of 

sites that appear to present a significant 

risk to public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Sites on the NPL may be 

the subject of remedial actions financed 

by the Hazardous Substance Superfund 

(Fund). As described in 40 CFR 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted 

from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if future 

conditions warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective August 2, 2011 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by July 5, 2011. Along with this direct 

final Notice of Deletion, EPA is copublishing a Notice of Intent to Delete 

in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of the 

Federal Register. If adverse comments 

are received within the 30-day public 

comment period on this deletion action, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

this direct final Notice of Deletion 

before the effective date of the deletion 

and the deletion will not take effect. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1