Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 39343 

(2) [The text of the proposed 

amendments to § 1.1001–3(e)(5)(ii)(B)(2) 

is the same as the text of § 1.1001– 

3T(e)(5)(ii)(B)(2) published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register]. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

Example 1. [The text of the proposed 

amendments to § 1.1001–3(g) Example 1 is 

the same as the text of § 1.1001–3T(g) 

Example 1 published elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register]. 

* * * * * 

Example 5. [The text of the proposed 

amendments to § 1.1001–3(g) Example 5 is 

the same as the text of § 1.1001–3T(g) 

Example 5 published elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register]. 

* * * * * 

Example 8. [The text of the proposed 

amendments to § 1.1001–3(g) Example 8 is 

the same as the text of § 1.1001–3T(g) 

Example 8 published elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register]. 

PART 48—MANUFACTURERS AND 

RETAILERS EXCISE TAXES 

Par. 9. The authority citation for part 

48 continues to read in part as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

Par. 10. Section 48.4101–1 paragraphs 

(f)(4)(ii)(B) and (l)(5) are revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 48.4101–1 Taxable fuel; registration. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) [The text of the proposed 

amendments to § 48.4101–1(f)(4)(ii)(B) 

is the same as the text of § 48.4101– 

1T(f)(4)(ii)(B) published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register]. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(5) [The text of the proposed 

amendments to § 48.4101–1(l)(5) is the 

same as the text of § 48.4101–1T(l)(5) 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register]. 

Steven T. Miller, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16857 Filed 7–1–11; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–101826–11] 

RIN 1545–BK04 

New Markets Tax Credit Non-Real 

Estate Investments; Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–101826–11) that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 (76 FR 32882) 

modifying the new markets tax credit 

program to facilitate and encourage 

investments in non-real estate 

businesses in low-income communities. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Hanlon-Bolton, (202) 622–3040 (not a 

toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The correction notice that is the 

subject of this document is under 

section 45D of the Internal Revenue 

Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–101826–11) contains 

errors that may prove to be misleading 

and are in need of clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (REG– 

101826–11), which was the subject of 

FR Doc. 2011–13978, is corrected as 

follows: 

1. On page 32883, column 2, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘General Overview’’, second paragraph 

of the column, fourth line, the language 

‘‘nonprofit corporation) or partnership 

if’’ is corrected to read ‘‘nonprofit 

corporation) or partnership, if’’. 

2. On page 32883, column 3, in the 

preamble, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘Explanation of Provisions’’, first 

paragraph of the column, second line, 

the language ‘‘amortizing loans) reinvest those’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘amortizing loans) reinvest those’’. 

LaNita Van Dyke, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2011–16825 Filed 7–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitles A and B 

[Docket ID ED–2011–OGC–0004] 

Reducing Regulatory Burden; 

Retrospective Review Under E.O. 

13563 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Education (the Department) requests 

comments on its preliminary plan for 

the retrospective analysis of its existing 

regulations as part of its implementation 

of Executive Order 13563 ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review.’’ 

The purpose of this preliminary plan is 

to make the Department’s regulatory 

program more effective and less 

burdensome in achieving the 

Department’s regulatory objectives. The 

plan, once final, will establish the 

Department’s policy for conducting 

thorough and meaningful retrospective 

reviews and analyses of its regulations 

on an ongoing basis. The Department 

requests public comment on this 

preliminary plan to help the Department 

review its significant existing 

regulations in order to determine 

whether any of these regulations should 

be modified, streamlined, expanded, or 

repealed. 

In addition, pursuant to the 

‘‘President’s Memorandum on 

Administrative Flexibility, Lower Costs, 

and Better Results for State, Local, and 

Tribal Governments,’’ we request 

comments (including, when applicable, 

from students, their parents, and 

consumer and taxpayer representatives) 

on possible administrative flexibility 

that the Department may be able to 

provide to State, local, and tribal 

governments. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before July 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by e-mail. Please 

submit your comments only one time, in 

order to ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID—Docket ID ED– 

2011–OGC–0004—at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments. Information on using 

Regulations.gov, including instructions 

for finding a notice, submitting a 

comment, finding a comment, and 

signing up for e-mail alerts, is available 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39344 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

on the site under ‘‘How to Use 

Regulations.gov’’ in the Help section. 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments, address them to 

Elizabeth McFadden, Deputy General 

Counsel for Ethics, Legislative Counsel, 

and Regulatory Services, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 6E300, Washington, DC 20202– 

2110. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy for 

comments received from members of the 

public (including those comments submitted 

by mail, commercial delivery, or hand 

delivery) is to make these submissions 

available for public viewing in their entirety 

on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to include in 

their comments only information that they 

wish to make publicly available on the 

Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth McFadden, Deputy General 

Counsel for Ethics, Legislative Counsel, 

and Regulatory Services, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20202–2110. 

Telephone: 202–401–6000. You may 

also e-mail your questions to: RegReview@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain this document in an accessible 

format (e.g., braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) by 

contacting the person listed under this 

section. 

To view Executive Order 13563 go to: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011- 

01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf. 

To view the ‘‘President’s 

Memorandum on Administrative 

Flexibility, Lower Costs, and Better 

Results for State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments,’’ go to: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ 

2011/02/28/presidential-memorandumadministrative-flexibility. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment 

We invite you to submit comments 

regarding the preliminary plan, which is 

published in its entirety as an Appendix 

to this notice, and possible 

administrative flexibility that the 

Department may be able to provide to 

State, local, and tribal governments. 

Please let us know of any further 

opportunities we should take to 

improve any of our regulations by 

modifying, streamlining, expanding, or 

repealing them or to provide additional 

flexibility to entities that receive 

Department funds. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments on 

this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. 

You may also inspect the comments, in 

person, in room 6E300, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 

Eastern time, Monday through Friday of 

each week except Federal holidays. If 

you want to schedule an appointment to 

review the comments in person, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the Public 

Docket 

On request, we will supply an 

appropriate aid, such as a reader or 

print magnifier, to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public docket for this 

notice. If you want to schedule an 

appointment for this type of aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Background 

Retrospective Review 

On January 18, 2011, President 

Obama issued Executive Order 13563 

(published in the Federal Register on 

January 21, 2011 (76 FR 3821)), which 

directs agencies to conduct a 

retrospective analysis of existing 

significant regulations and to modify, 

streamline, expand, or repeal those 

regulations that are outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome. Executive Order 13563 

supplements and reaffirms the 

principles of regulatory review 

enunciated in Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ 

(published in the Federal Register on 

November 4, 1993 (58 FR 51735)). Some 

of these principles are that our 

regulatory system must: (1) Promote 

economic growth, innovation, 

competitiveness, and job creation; (2) be 

based on the best available science; (3) 

allow for meaningful public 

participation; (4) consider costs and 

benefits; (5) promote predictability; and 

(6) ensure that regulations are accessible 

and easy to understand. In order to 

advance these principles, Executive 

Order 13563 requires agencies to 

develop and implement a plan for 

periodically reviewing their existing 

significant regulations. 

Section 6(b) of Executive Order 13563 

directs each agency to develop and 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs a preliminary 

plan for reviewing existing significant 

regulations in order to determine 

whether any such regulations should be 

modified, streamlined, expanded, or 

repealed. 

The Department developed a 

preliminary plan and submitted it to 

OMB on May 18, 2011. The preliminary 

plan addresses our plan to review 

existing significant regulations (and 

significant guidance documents and 

existing information collections—to the 

extent they are associated with existing 

regulations), and priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria governing discretionary grant 

programs that are established through 

rulemaking but that are not codified in 

the Code of Federal Regulations. More 

specifically, the plan (1) lists the factors 

and processes the Department proposes 

to use to set priorities for the 

retrospective review of its regulations; 

(2) identifies an initial list of existing 

regulations that are candidates for 

review; (3) explains how the 

Department intends to coordinate with 

other Federal agencies that have 

overlapping jurisdiction or similar 

interests; and (4) sets forth the proposed 

components of its retrospective costbenefit analysis. Through this notice, we 

request public comment on these 

particular elements of the preliminary 

plan as well as all other aspects of the 

plan. We will consider the feedback we 

receive through this process when 

formulating a final retrospective review 

plan and establishing processes for 

ongoing review at the Department. 

The preliminary plan is included in 

the Appendix to this notice and is also 

available on the Department’s Open 

Government Web site at http:// 

www.ed.gov/open. 

Administrative Flexibility, Lower Costs, 

and Better Results for State, Local, and 

Tribal Governments 

On February 28, 2011, the President 

issued a memorandum to Federal 

agencies entitled ‘‘Administrative 

Flexibility, Lower Costs, and Better 

Results for State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments.’’ This memorandum 

requires Federal agencies to report to 

OMB on actions taken and plans to offer 

greater flexibility, where it will yield 

improved outcomes at lower cost, in 

Federal programs administered by State, 

local, and tribal governments. 

To implement the President’s 

directive in the memorandum, the 

Department is working to identify 

administrative, regulatory, and 

legislative barriers that currently 

prevent States, localities, and tribes 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 39345 

from efficiently and effectively using 

Federal funds to achieve program 

objectives. We are in the process of 

identifying a number of high-impact 

areas in which efforts to increase 

flexibility and reduce costs could have 

broad implications for a wide set of 

stakeholders. Potential actions under 

consideration include offering 

additional waiver options that would 

provide regulatory relief on key 

provisions, simplifying redundant or 

overlapping data requirements, 

providing a better and more transparent 

process for considering State requests to 

waive requirements to maintain fiscal 

effort, and improving interagency 

collaboration in such areas as early 

learning, workforce development, and 

place-based initiatives such as Promise 

Neighborhoods, which may offer 

opportunities for achieving additional 

cross-agency efficiencies. 

We would appreciate responses to the 

following questions: 

(1) What administrative, regulatory, 

and statutory requirements could be 

changed to help reduce costs and 

unnecessary burdens, spur innovation, 

and improve student or program 

outcomes? 

(2) What regulatory requirements 

should the Department consider 

waiving, subject to statutory waiver 

authority? 

(3) Should the Department streamline 

the application and approval process for 

waivers and, if so, how? 

(4) Where could the Department 

reduce current reporting requirements 

that are not necessary or useful in 

measuring program performance, 

facilitating data-driven program 

improvements, or ensuring the proper 

use of taxpayer dollars? Where are there 

opportunities to consolidate or 

streamline data collection or submission 

requirements? 

(5) How can the Department 

streamline or modify the procedures 

that we use for processing requests for 

waivers of maintenance-of-effort (MOE) 

requirements to make them more 

transparent and uniform across 

programs with MOE requirements and 

reduce unnecessary reporting for States? 

(6) What cross-agency flexibility or 

alignment is needed to allow States, 

local, and tribal governments to improve 

their early learning, workforce, and 

place-based efforts? (This could include 

consideration of how we might provide 

additional flexibility in such areas as 

performance measurement, application 

requirements, or uses of funds, or might 

encourage cross-agency funding 

opportunities, etc.) 

(7) What flexibility can the 

Department offer to help facilitate 

collaboration at and across the State, 

local, and tribal levels? 

(8) Where could increased flexibility 

drive the most improvements in 

program and student outcomes? 

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. 

Dated: June 29, 2011. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

United States Department of Education 

Preliminary Plan for Retrospective 

Analysis of Existing Rules 

May 18, 2011. 

I. Executive Summary of Preliminary 

Plan and Compliance With Executive 

Order 13563 

Executive Order 13563 (Executive 

Order) recognizes the importance of 

maintaining a consistent culture of 

retrospective review and analysis 

throughout the executive branch. 

Determining the costs and benefits of a 

regulation before it is implemented is a 

challenging task and it often cannot be 

accomplished with perfect precision. 

The U.S. Department of Education’s 

(ED) plan is designed to create a defined 

policy, method, and schedule for 

identifying certain significant rules that 

may be outmoded, ineffective, 

insufficient, or excessively burdensome. 

The review processes described in this 

plan are intended to facilitate the 

identification of regulations that warrant 

repeal or modification, or the 

strengthening, complementing, or 

modernizing of regulations, where 

necessary or appropriate. 

II. Scope of Plan 

a. Background: ED supports States, 

local communities, institutions of 

higher education, and others in 

improving education nationwide and in 

helping to ensure that all Americans 

receive a quality education. We provide 

leadership and financial assistance 

pertaining to education at all levels to 

a wide range of stakeholders and 

individuals, including State educational 

agencies, early childhood programs, 

elementary and secondary schools, 

institutions of higher education, career 

and technical schools, nonprofit 

organizations, members of the public, 

and many others. These efforts are 

helping to ensure that all students will 

be ready for college and careers, and 

that all K–12 students have an open 

path towards postsecondary education. 

We also vigorously monitor and enforce 

the implementation of Federal civil 

rights laws in education programs and 

activities that receive Federal financial 

assistance, and support innovation, 

research, evaluation, and dissemination 

of findings to improve the quality of 

education. Overall, the programs we 

administer affect nearly every American 

during his or her life. 

In developing and implementing 

regulations, guidance, technical 

assistance, and approaches to 

compliance related to our programs, we 

are guided by the following three 

principles. First, we are committed to 

working closely with affected persons 

and groups. Specifically, we work with 

a broad range of interested parties and 

the general public, including parents, 

students, and educators; State, local, 

and tribal governments; and 

neighborhood groups, schools, colleges, 

rehabilitation service providers, 

professional associations, advocacy 

organizations, businesses, and labor 

organizations. 

Secondly, we are committed to 

ensuring our regulations are concise and 

minimize burden to the greatest extent 

possible while still helping ensure the 

achievement of program outcomes. And 

finally, we continue to seek greater and 

more useful public participation in our 

rulemaking activities through the use of 

transparent and interactive rulemaking 

procedures and new technologies. If we 

determine that it is necessary to develop 

regulations, we seek public 

participation at all key stages in the 

rulemaking process. 

These three guiding principles will be 

incorporated fully into our retrospective 

analyses of ED regulations. 

b. List all subagencies within the 

Department that are included in this 

plan: 

The following offices within ED are 

included in this plan: 

Office of the Secretary 

Office of the Deputy Secretary 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39346 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1When referring to the review of regulations 

throughout this plan, that review includes review 

of significant guidance documents and information 

collections associated with the regulations under 

review. 

2See U.S. Department of Education, Statement of 

Regulatory Priorities, 75 FR 79509 (Dec. 20, 2010). 

Office of the Under Secretary 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Office of the Chief Information Officer 

Office of Management 

Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education 

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Office of Federal Student Aid 

Office of English Language Acquisition 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, including the 

Office of Special Education Programs, 

the National Institute on Disability 

and Rehabilitation Research, and the 

Rehabilitation Services 

Administration 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Innovation and Improvement 

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

Office of Vocational and Adult 

Education 

Office of the General Counsel 

Office for Civil Rights 

Office of Planning, Evaluation, and 

Policy Development 

c. The following types of documents 

are covered under this plan: 

• Existing regulations 

• Significant guidance documents (to 

the extent they are associated with 

existing regulations) 

• Existing information collections (to 

the extent they are associated with 

existing regulations) 

• Priorities, requirements, definitions, 

and selection criteria governing 

discretionary grant programs that are 

established through rulemaking but 

are not codified in the Code of Federal 

Regulations 1

III. Public Access and Participation 

a. Did the agency publish a notice in 

the Federal Register seeking public 

input on developing plans? If yes, please 

provide a link to the notice. 

No. However, ED will soon be 

publishing a notice requesting public 

comment on our preliminary plan in the 

Federal Register and posting it on our 

Open Government Web site. Through 

these notices, and pursuant to the 

President’s Memorandum on 

Administrative Flexibility, Lower Costs, 

and Better Results for State, Local, and 

Tribal Governments, ED will solicit 

feedback (including, when applicable, 

from students, their parents, and 

consumer and taxpayer representatives) 

on possible administrative flexibilities 

that ED may be able to provide to State, 

local, and tribal governments; non-profit 

organizations; institutions of higher 

education; community-based 

organizations; and other entities that 

receive funds under our programs. ED 

believes it will receive more meaningful 

feedback from the public and 

stakeholders by providing a specific 

draft plan for retrospective review and 

by including in that notice questions on 

possible administrative flexibilities that 

may be accomplished through 

regulatory revisions as well as through 

other methods. ED also intends to solicit 

this feedback on an ongoing basis 

through meetings with stakeholders. 

b. Brief summary of public comments 

to notice seeking input: N/A. 

c. Did the agency reach out to the 

public in addition to the public notice? 

N/A. 

IV. Current Agency Efforts Already 

Underway Independent of E.O. 13563 

a. Summary of pre-existing agency 

efforts (independent of E.O. 13563) to 

conduct retrospective analysis of 

existing rules: 

ED has long been committed to 

ensuring that its regulations are 

reviewed and updated as necessary and 

appropriate. As outlined each year in 

ED’s Regulatory Plan,2 and through 

consistent application of the key 

principles outlined below, we have 

eliminated unnecessary regulations and 

identified situations in which major 

programs could be implemented 

without regulations or with limited 

regulatory action. 

In deciding when to regulate, we 

consider: 

• Whether regulations are essential to 

promote quality and equality of 

opportunity in education; 

• Whether a demonstrated problem 

can be resolved without regulation; 

• Whether regulations are necessary 

in order to provide a legally binding 

interpretation that resolves ambiguity; 

• Whether entities or situations 

subject to regulation are so diverse that 

a uniform approach through regulation 

would do more harm than good; and 

• Whether regulations are needed to 

protect the Federal interest; that is, to 

ensure that Federal funds are used for 

their intended purpose and to eliminate 

fraud, waste, and abuse. 

In deciding how to regulate, we are 

mindful of the following principles: 

• Regulate no more than necessary; 

• Minimize burden to the extent 

possible, and promote multiple 

approaches to meeting statutory 

requirements when possible; 

• Encourage coordination of federally 

funded activities with State and local 

reform activities; 

• Ensure that the benefits justify the 

costs of regulating; 

• To the extent possible, establish 

performance objectives rather than 

specify compliance behavior; and 

• Encourage flexibility, to the extent 

possible, so institutional forces and 

incentives achieve desired results. 

Additionally, we routinely review the 

priorities and requirements governing 

our discretionary grant competitions 

following the completion of those 

competitions to determine whether 

changes should be made for future 

competitions. 

Over the past two years, and operating 

under these principles, we have engaged 

in retrospective review of several key 

regulations that required updating to 

reflect changes in the authorizing 

statute, Administration priorities, or ED 

policies. We also began the process of 

developing a broader plan for a 

retrospective review of our regulations. 

Some examples of those efforts are as 

follows: 

• ED recently reviewed and revised 

its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

regulations to implement changes made 

to FOIA in recent years. These amended 

regulations also took into account 

public guidance regarding FOIA issued 

by the White House and the Department 

of Justice. The revised regulations 

articulate more clearly to the public 

how ED processes FOIA requests for 

publicly available records, thereby 

promoting equality of opportunity and 

decreasing ambiguity. 

• In 2009 and 2010, ED reviewed and 

subsequently modified, following notice 

and public comment, its Education 

Department Acquisition Regulations 

(EDAR) to bring those regulations into 

alignment with changes to the Federal 

Acquisition Regulations. These 

modifications will increase the 

efficiency with which ED manages 

contracts. 

• Upon reauthorization of the Federal 

TRIO discretionary grant programs in 

the Higher Education Opportunity Act 

of 2008, ED reviewed its existing TRIO 

regulations and conducted negotiated 

rulemaking in 2009 and 2010 to 

comprehensively update and amend the 

regulations governing these programs. 

These amended regulations will help 

ensure that Federal funds are used for 

their intended purpose and resolve 

ambiguity for potential applicants, 

thereby ensuring that all eligible 

applicants have an opportunity to 

participate in the program. 

• Over the past two years, ED 

reviewed and revised a number of 

program integrity regulatory provisions 

associated with the Federal student aid 

programs authorized under Title IV of 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 39347 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (HEA). ED conducted this 

review in recognition of the fact that the 

student financial aid programs have 

grown dramatically in recent years, 

placing significantly more taxpayer 

funding at risk. In response to this 

dramatic growth in aid, we tightened 

our regulatory requirements in some 

areas (e.g., misrepresentation, State 

authorization, credit hours, and 

incentive compensation) while relaxing 

them in others (e.g., verification). This 

balanced approach, combined with our 

work on the ‘‘gainful employment’’ 

issue, will allow for additional growth 

in the aid programs while ensuring that 

we have appropriate safeguards in place 

to protect taxpayer funds. 

• In January 2011, ED successfully 

completed its 2010 Burden Reduction 

Initiative to reduce Free Application for 

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) burden by 

at least five percent. In fact, ED 

decreased the FAFSA burden by 

5,405,813 hours, or more than 14 

percent. As part of accomplishing this 

impressive burden reduction, ED also 

realized the other goals included as part 

of the initiative: (a) Consolidation of the 

FAFSA and SAR into one ICR to better 

reflect that the two are part of one 

business process—applying for Federal 

student financial aid; and (b) 

Simplifying the application experience 

for student aid applicants by shortening 

completion times, primarily through the 

use of improved technology such as 

‘‘skip and assumption logic.’’ 

• In preparation for conducting a 

retrospective review of ED’s regulations, 

we have reviewed plans and strategies 

used by other agencies, journal articles, 

and Administrative Conference of the 

United States (ACUS) Recommendation 

95–3, ‘‘Review of Existing Agency 

Regulations.’’ We also began 

considering methods for determining 

which regulations should be reviewed, 

strategies for engaging senior leadership, 

and how best to allocate resources for 

such a review. 

b. What specific rules, if any, were 

already under consideration for 

retrospective analysis? 

Prior to issuance of the Executive 

Order, and in establishing ED’s 

regulatory priorities for 2011, we 

identified several specific regulations 

for retrospective review and determined 

that, based on that review, further 

amendments to these regulations are 

necessary. These regulations are as 

follows: 

• The Federal Family Education Loan 

(FFEL) program regulations in 34 CFR 

part 682 and the William D. Ford 

Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) 

program regulations in 34 CFR part 685. 

In the SAFRA Act, Title II of the Health 

Care and Education Reconciliation Act 

of 2010, Congress ended the making of 

new loans in the FFEL program, 

effective July 1, 2010. As a result, the 

Direct Loan program has expanded to be 

the single source of new Federal student 

loans. ED is evaluating to what extent 

some of the FFEL program regulations 

are no longer needed and what changes 

are needed within the Direct Loan 

program regulations to improve 

efficiency and modernize the operations 

of that program. ED has begun the 

negotiated rulemaking process for these 

regulations. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR parts 607, 

608, 609, 628, and 637, governing the 

institutional development programs 

authorized by Titles III and V of the 

HEA. These regulations govern existing 

discretionary grant programs for 

minority-serving institutions. The 

Higher Education Opportunity Act of 

2008 and the SAFRA Act created several 

new programs for minority-serving 

institutions; these new programs, 

however, are not covered by the existing 

regulations. We need to review and 

amend the existing regulations in order 

to streamline them across the different 

programs, to the extent feasible, and to 

ensure that they cover the newly 

authorized programs. Through these 

amendments, we plan to simplify the 

application process, thereby reducing 

burden on potential applicants. 

• ED’s regulations governing its direct 

grant and State-administered grant 

programs in 34 CFR parts 74 through 99, 

also known as the Education 

Department General Administrative 

Regulations (EDGAR). Over the last 

several years, we have identified 

provisions within these regulations that 

are obsolete or that require updating to 

take into account developments in 

technology and streamlined application 

submission processes, thereby reducing 

burden on our applicants and grantees. 

Additionally, in implementing several 

new grant programs under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA), we have identified key 

provisions in EDGAR that require 

substantive changes to improve 

transparency and improve the efficiency 

of our grant-making functions. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR part 99 

regarding the Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act (FERPA). On April 8, 

2011, ED issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking to amend these regulations. 

These proposed amendments are 

necessary to ensure that ED’s 

implementation of FERPA continues to 

protect the privacy of education records, 

as intended by Congress, while allowing 

for the effective use of data in statewide 

longitudinal data systems (SLDS) as 

envisioned in the America COMPETES 

Act and under the ARRA. Improved 

access to data contained within an SLDS 

will reduce burden on States and greatly 

facilitate States’ efforts to evaluate 

education programs, to build upon what 

works and discard what does not, to 

increase accountability and 

transparency, and to contribute to a 

culture of innovation and continuous 

improvement in education. 

V. Elements of Preliminary Plan/ 

Compliance With E.O. 13563 

a. How does the agency plan to 

develop a strong, ongoing culture of 

retrospective analysis? 

This plan, once finalized, will 

establish ED’s policy for conducting 

thorough and meaningful retrospective 

reviews and analyses of our regulations 

on an ongoing basis. This plan will be 

disseminated to all offices within ED, 

and all offices will participate in 

implementing the plan. 

ED has established a retrospective 

review team that is responsible for 

developing this plan and for 

coordinating the retrospective reviews 

going forward. This team will regularly 

report its progress in implementing the 

plan and conducting the retrospective 

reviews to Deputy Secretary Miller and 

other senior officials. As indicated 

below, ED intends to conduct its 

retrospective reviews biennially. Thus, 

retrospective reviews will become 

standard operating procedure in the 

agency. 

b. Prioritization. What factors and 

processes will the agency use in setting 

priorities? 

The factors ED will use in setting 

priorities for the retrospective review of 

its regulations are: 

• Have regulated parties expressed 

confusion about the regulations or 

requested changes to the regulations? 

• Can the regulations be understood 

and implemented without extensive 

legal interpretation, non-regulatory 

guidance, or technical assistance? 

• Have regulated parties expressed 

concern about unwarranted regulatory 

burden? Do the regulations create an 

unnecessary administrative burden? 

• What is the estimated timeline for 

reviewing and possibly amending the 

regulations? For instance, will ED need 

to conduct negotiated rulemaking to 

amend the regulations, and does ED 

need amended regulations in place by a 

certain date? 

• Has Congress amended the 

authorizing statute such that prompt 

review of existing regulations is 

necessary? 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39348 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• Does ED anticipate reauthorization 

of the authorizing statute in the near 

term such that prompt review of 

existing regulations would likely be 

disrupted or not lead to regulatory 

revisions that could be implemented 

before reauthorization? 

• Are the regulations outmoded, 

unnecessary, or out of date? If so, are 

they impeding the proper 

administration of the relevant program? 

• Are the current regulations 

sufficient to administer the applicable 

programs? 

• Are the regulations necessary to 

conduct the grant program or can the 

program be implemented based entirely 

on the statutory provisions or through 

using appropriate provisions of EDGAR? 

• Have issues with the regulations 

been identified in audits (Office of 

Inspector General (OIG), Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), Single 

Audits)? Are there repeat audit findings 

or conflicting views on what the 

regulations mean? 

• Are the regulations essential for 

program effectiveness and financial 

integrity? For example, does ED or 

another oversight entity monitor 

compliance with the regulations? 

c. Initial list of candidate rules for 

review over the next two years: 

In addition to those regulations 

currently under review, we have 

preliminarily identified a number of 

other regulatory provisions that we 

believe warrant retrospective review. As 

indicated below, program offices will be 

asked to conduct a retrospective review 

of these and other regulatory provisions 

in the next several months. These are as 

follows: 

• Regulations in 34 CFR part 300 

under Part B of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and 

reporting requirements under Part B of 

IDEA. We have heard from a number of 

States about burden associated with 

some provisions of our current Part B, 

IDEA regulations and annual reporting 

requirements. We intend to conduct a 

thorough review of these regulations 

and requirements to assess their 

effectiveness and determine whether 

burden can be reduced, without 

diminishing the rights of students with 

disabilities. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR part 350 

relating to programs administered by 

the National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). In 

reviewing these regulations, ED seeks to 

identify regulatory changes that could 

improve the process for awarding grants 

and reduce the burden for eligible 

entities who apply for discretionary 

funds under the programs administered 

by NIDRR. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR 388.21 for 

the State Vocational Rehabilitation Unit 

In-Service Training Program. The 

Department is concerned that the 

current formula may lead to inequitable 

or inefficient distribution of funding 

among eligible entities and is interested 

in identifying changes that might 

increase the effectiveness of this 

program. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR parts 400 

through 491 governing career and 

technical education programs. These 

regulations have not been updated since 

the most recent reauthorization in the 

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 

Education Improvement Act of 2006. 

We will consider whether regulations 

are needed to improve the 

administration and effectiveness of the 

program. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR part 104 

implementing section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These 

regulations, which are designed to 

eliminate discrimination on the basis of 

handicap in any program or activity 

receiving Federal financial assistance, 

have not been updated since 2000. We 

will consider whether changes are 

needed to improve the administration 

and implementation of the regulations. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR parts 655, 

656, 657, 658, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 

and 669 governing the postsecondary 

international education programs. 

Following reauthorization of the HEA in 

2008, ED made limited technical 

amendments to these regulations. 

However, a more comprehensive review 

of these regulations is necessary. 

Specifically, ED needs to review and 

amend these regulations to streamline 

them across the different programs to 

reduce burden on potential applicants, 

to the extent feasible, and to ensure that 

they provide the flexibility necessary to 

address emerging issues in international 

education. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR parts 673, 

674, 675, and 676 governing the 

campus-based Federal Student Aid 

programs. ED has regulations governing 

these formula grant programs that 

require updating and streamlining. We 

will consider changes that are needed to 

improve the administration and 

efficiency of these programs, while 

reducing burden on regulated parties. 

• Regulations governing discretionary 

grant programs for which the 

authorization has been repealed or for 

which Congress has not provided 

funding in some time. These include 

regulations for the Endowment 

Challenge Grant program in 34 CFR part 

628, the Urban Community Service 

Program in 34 CFR part 636, the Christa 

McAuliffe Fellowship Program in 34 

CFR part 237, and in the Bilingual 

Education: Graduation Fellowship 

Program 34 CFR part 535. We will 

repeal the regulations for the programs 

that are no longer authorized and 

consider whether the regulations for 

authorized but no longer funded 

programs are still necessary. 

d. Structure and Staffing. High-level 

agency official responsible for 

retrospective review. 

Name/Position Title: Tony Miller, 

Deputy Secretary. 

E-mail address: tony.miller@ed.gov. 

e. How does the agency plan to ensure 

that the agency’s retrospective team and 

process maintain sufficient 

independence from the offices 

responsible for writing and 

implementing regulations? 

The retrospective review team will 

include representatives of the following 

offices: Office of the Deputy Secretary; 

Office of the Under Secretary; Office of 

Planning, Evaluation, and Policy 

Development; Budget Service; and the 

Office of the General Counsel. These 

offices do not have primary 

responsibility for drafting or 

implementing regulations. Additionally, 

the team will consult, as appropriate, 

with other offices that have agency-wide 

responsibilities, such as the Office of 

Inspector General. 

f. Describe agency actions, if any, to 

strengthen internal review expertise. 

This could include training staff, 

regrouping staff, hiring new staff, or 

other methods. 

The review team will be trained on 

the prioritization factors that ED has 

identified above and on our principles 

for regulating. The principles and the 

prioritization factors will be used as the 

key criteria in conducting the review. 

g. How will the agency plan for 

retrospective analysis over the next two 

years, and beyond? 

ED will be publishing the preliminary 

plan for public comment and, following 

the receipt of public comment, will 

revise the plan accordingly. At the same 

time, the retrospective review team will 

be asking program offices, budget 

analysts, and program attorneys to 

complete a retrospective review survey 

that requests information on existing 

regulations (see response to question 

VI(c) below). The team will coordinate 

the retrospective reviews and provide 

periodic reports to Deputy Secretary 

Miller and other senior officials on the 

progress and results of those reviews. 

Once these reviews have been 

completed, the retrospective review 

team will analyze the results and 

develop recommendations to senior 

officials about which regulations should 

be amended (or what other actions other 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 39349 

than regulation could be taken to reduce 

burden). Taking into account the 

prioritization factors listed above and 

agency resources, and working with 

senior officials, ED will develop a 

schedule for the amendment of those 

regulations identified for revision. 

While ED is conducting these reviews, 

it will analyze the public comments that 

it receives on the draft plan and 

incorporate any changes into the final 

plan. ED intends to conduct its 

retrospective reviews biennially. 

h. How will the agency decide what to 

do with the analysis? 

The retrospective review team will 

use the results of the analysis to develop 

recommendations for senior officials 

regarding whether regulations should be 

amended and whether alternatives to 

regulating, such as updating guidance or 

modifying reporting requirements, 

should instead be used to reduce 

burden, simplify program 

implementation, or improve 

understanding of the regulations. 

i. What are the agency’s plans for 

revising rules? How will agencies 

periodically revisit rules (e.g., through 

sunset provisions, during regular 

intervals)? 

ED will revise regulations based on 

the results of the retrospective reviews, 

the recommendations of the 

retrospective review team, and the 

decisions of senior officials. As 

indicated above, ED intends to conduct 

its retrospective reviews biennially. 

j. Describe how the agency will 

coordinate with other Federal agencies 

that have jurisdiction or similar 

interests: 

ED will work through the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

within the Office of Management and 

Budget and with its existing contacts at 

other agencies as it is conducting its 

retrospective reviews and any 

subsequent amendments to our 

regulations. These agencies include the 

U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. 

Department of Labor, the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, the Social Security 

Administration, and the U.S. Small 

Business Administration. With respect 

to our discretionary grant programs, we 

have consulted and will continue to 

consult with other Federal agencies 

engaged in similar activities to assess 

ways in which we can reduce overlap 

and redundancy and share best 

practices, including in such areas as 

pre-award risk assessments and audit 

reviews. 

k. Will the plan be peer reviewed? 

There has been a thorough internal 

review of the preliminary plan by all 

offices within ED and any revisions 

made as a result of the public comment 

we receive on the draft plan will 

undergo a similarly thorough review. 

If yes, please describe those plans: 

The preliminary plan has undergone 

several levels of Departmental review. 

We have actively engaged and sought 

input from ED’s senior leaders in 

developing the plan. The plan was 

presented to ED’s Policy Committee for 

input and recommendations by senior 

policy officials. Based on 

recommendations from the Policy 

Committee, changes were made to the 

plan, and further changes were made as 

a result of the review by a larger group 

of ED staff who are directly responsible 

for administering the programs that 

would be affected by any changes to the 

regulations. As necessary, meetings 

were held to answer questions and 

reconcile differences. 

ED will soon be publishing the 

preliminary plan for public comment 

and will seek informal feedback from 

stakeholders. Following receipt of 

public and stakeholder input, ED will 

consider further revisions to the plan. 

The final plan will undergo a similar 

internal review as the preliminary plan. 

VI. Components of Retrospective CostBenefit Analysis 

a. What metrics will the agency use to 

evaluate regulations after they have 

been implemented? For example, will 

the agency use increases in net benefits, 

increases in cost effectiveness ratios, or 

something else? 

ED will use several metrics to 

evaluate regulations after they have 

been implemented. These metrics are as 

follows: 

• Have there been numerous 

questions from stakeholders asking for 

further clarification of, or further 

amendment to, the regulations on points 

it would be feasible or desirable to 

address or clarify in the regulations? 

• What, if any, guidance has ED 

provided to clarify the regulations 

following issuance of the regulations 

and has the guidance provided the 

clarification needed? 

• What does information obtained 

from ED data collections, including data 

collected through evaluations, grantee 

performance reports, and other sources 

tell us about changes in net benefits, 

cost-effectiveness ratios, or other 

financial metrics? 

• With respect specifically to ED’s 

regulations implementing Parts B and C 

of IDEA, ED already publishes a 

quarterly list of correspondence that it 

sends in response to requests from 

stakeholders. This correspondence 

provides guidance and interpretations of 

the IDEA and its implementing 

regulations. We will continue to 

monitor the substance of this 

correspondence and the number of 

inquiries received to assess whether 

regulatory changes may be necessary. 

• Has implementation of the 

regulations led to unfair or unequal 

access to funding? 

b. What steps has the agency taken to 

ensure that it has the data available 

with which to conduct a robust 

retrospective analysis? 

The retrospective review team will 

develop a template for offices to use in 

collecting data on the metrics identified 

above. ED also is exploring using a 

customer survey on an ongoing basis to 

obtain feedback and data from the 

public on ED regulations. 

c. How, if at all, will the agency 

incorporate experimental designs into 

retrospective analyses? 

Although ED will not be incorporating 

experimental designs into its analyses, 

its retrospective analysis of a given set 

of regulations will begin with 

independent reviews from the 

following: (1) Program staff who are 

responsible for overseeing the 

implementation of the regulations; (2) 

the program attorney who advises the 

program staff on the legal aspects of 

administering the program; and (3) 

budget staff who are knowledgeable 

about the allowable uses of program 

funds. Each individual will 

independently complete a review 

survey that requests information on at 

least the following questions (which 

correspond to the prioritization factors 

described above): 

• Have regulated parties identified a 

lack of clarity or need for changes in the 

regulations? If so, what regulatory 

provisions cause confusion or need 

change? 

• Can the regulations be understood 

and implemented without extensive 

legal interpretation, non-regulatory 

guidance, or technical assistance? 

• Have regulated parties expressed 

concern about unwarranted regulatory 

burden? Do the regulations create an 

unnecessary administrative burden? If 

so, what regulatory provisions might be 

unduly burdensome and why? 

• What is the estimated timeline for 

reviewing and possibly amending the 

regulations? For instance, will ED need 

to conduct negotiated rulemaking to 

amend the regulations and does ED 

need amended regulations in place by a 

certain date? 

• Has Congress amended the 

authorizing statute such that prompt 

review of existing regulations is 

necessary? 

• Does ED anticipate reauthorization 

of the authorizing statute in the near 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39350 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

term? If yes, how will reauthorization 

affect existing regulations? 

• Are the regulations outmoded, 

unnecessary, or out of date? If so, are 

they impeding the proper 

administration of the relevant program? 

Please identify specific regulatory 

provisions that are obsolete or out of 

date and provide a brief explanation. 

• What does the evidence from 

program evaluations, including those 

that use experimental designs, reveal 

about the efficacy of the regulations and 

the need for changes? 

• Are the current regulations 

sufficient to administer the applicable 

programs? If not, what specific changes 

would you recommend to update the 

existing regulations? 

• Are regulations necessary to 

conduct the grant program or can the 

program be implemented based on the 

statutory provisions? If regulations are 

necessary, what specific areas need to 

be covered in the regulations? 

• Have issues with the regulations 

been identified in audits (OIG, GAO, 

Single Audits)? Are there repeat audit 

findings or conflicting views on what 

the regulations mean? 

• Are the regulations essential for 

program effectiveness and financial 

integrity? For example, does ED or any 

other oversight entity monitor 

compliance with the regulations? 

• What are the costs and benefits of 

removing a regulatory requirement, and 

what would be the effect on students 

and program accountability? 

VII. Publishing the Agency’s Plan 

Online 

a. Will the agency publish its 

retrospective review plan and available 

data on its Open Government Web site 

(http://www.agency.gov/open). If yes, 

please provide the name of a technical 

staff person who will be charged with 

updating the plans online. 

ED will publish its plan on its Open 

Government website (http:// 

www.ed.gov/open). As indicated above, 

ED intends to solicit public comment on 

its plan as well. The technical person 

who will be charged with updating the 

plan online is Kirk Winters, who can be 

reached at kirk.winters@ed.gov. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16901 Filed 7–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

36 CFR Part 7 

RIN 1024–AD85 

Special Regulations, Areas of the 

National Park System, Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service 

(NPS) proposes to designate routes 

where off-road vehicles (ORVs) may be 

used within Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore (Seashore), North Carolina. 

Under NPS general regulations, the 

operation of motor vehicles off of roads 

within areas of the national park system 

is prohibited unless otherwise provided 

for by special regulation. The proposed 

rule would authorize ORV use at the 

Seashore, manage it to protect and 

preserve natural and cultural resources 

and natural processes, and provide a 

variety of safe visitor experiences while 

minimizing conflicts among various 

users. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before midnight (Eastern Daylight 

Time) Tuesday September 6, 2011. The 

NPS does not anticipate extending the 

public comment period beyond the 

stated deadline due to a court imposed 

deadline for completing the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the Regulation Identifier 

Number (RIN) 1024–AD85, by any of the 

following methods: 

—Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

—Mail or hand deliver to: 

Superintendent, Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore, 1401 National Park 

Drive, Manteo, North Carolina 27954. 

—For additional information see 

‘‘Public Participation’’ under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. 

Comments submitted through Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov or submitted by 

mail must be entered or postmarked 

before midnight (Eastern Daylight Time) 

September 6, 2011. Comments 

submitted by hand delivery must be 

received by the close of business hours 

(5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time) 

September 6, 2011. Comments will not 

be accepted by fax, e-mail, or in any 

way other than those specified above, 

and bulk comments in any format (hard 

copy or electronic) submitted on behalf 

of others will not be accepted. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Murray, Superintendent, Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore, 1401 

National Park Drive, Manteo, North 

Carolina 27954. Phone: (252) 473–2111 

(ext 148). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Description of Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore 

Officially established in 1937 along 

the Outer Banks of North Carolina, Cape 

Hatteras is the nation’s first national 

seashore. Consisting of more than 

30,000 acres distributed along 

approximately 67 miles of shoreline, the 

Seashore is part of a dynamic barrier 

island system. 

The Seashore serves as a popular 

recreation destination where visitors 

participate in a variety of recreational 

activities. The Seashore also contains 

important habitat for wildlife created by 

the Seashore’s dynamic environmental 

processes. Several species, listed under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

including the piping plover, seabeach 

amaranth, and three species of sea 

turtles, are found within the park. 

Authority and Jurisdiction 

In enacting the National Park Service 

Organic Act of 1916 (Organic Act) (16 

U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Congress granted the 

NPS broad authority to regulate the use 

of areas under its jurisdiction. Section 3 

of the Organic Act specifically 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, 

acting through the NPS, to ‘‘make and 

publish such rules and regulations as he 

may deem necessary or proper for the 

use and management of the parks. 

* * *’’ 

Off-Road Motor Vehicle Regulation 

Executive Order 11644, Use of OffRoad Vehicles on the Public Lands, was 

issued in 1972 in response to the 

widespread and rapidly increasing offroad driving on public lands ‘‘often for 

legitimate purposes but also in frequent 

conflict with wise land and resource 

management practices, environmental 

values, and other types of recreational 

activity.’’ Executive Order 11644 was 

amended by Executive Order 11989 in 

1977, and together they are collectively 

referred to in this rule as ‘‘E.O.’’. The 

E.O. requires Federal agencies that 

allow motorized vehicle use in off-road 

areas to designate specific areas and 

routes on public lands where the use of 

motorized vehicles may be permitted. 

Specifically, section 3 of the E.O. 

requires agencies to develop and issue 

regulations and administrative 

instructions to provide for 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS