19388 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 165.T17–0216 Safety Zone for Pollution 

Responders; Neva Strait, Sitka, AK. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of Neva Strait 

with a 100-yard radius of oil spill 

recovery vessels. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section: 

(1) Captain of the Port (COTP) means 

the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard 

Sector Juneau. 

(2) Designated representative means a 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander, 

including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty 

officer, or other officer operating a Coast 

Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and 

local officer designated by or assisting 

the COTP Southeast Alaska in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative by telephone 

at 907–463–2980 or on Marine Band 

Radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 

MHz). The designated representative onscene can be contacted on Marine Band 

Radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 

MHz). 

(3) Those in the safety zone must 

comply with all lawful orders or 

directions given to them by the COTP or 

the COTP’s designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced twenty-four hours per 

day from 6 p.m. on March 27, 2022, 

until 6 p.m. on April 29, 2022. 

Dated: March 25, 2022. 

D.A. Jensen, 

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

Port Southeast Alaska. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07001 Filed 4–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2021–OESE–0148] 

Final Definition—Supporting Effective 

Educator Development Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final definition. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) announces a definition 

under the Supporting Effective Educator 

Development (SEED) program, 

Assistance Listing Number 84.423A. We 

may use this definition for competitions 

in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later years. 

We take this action to clarify the 

conditions under which a nonprofit 

entity may be defined as a national 

entity. 

DATES: This definition is effective May 

4, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Miller, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 3C152, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 260–7350. Email: 

christine.miller@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: The SEED 

program provides funding to increase 

the number of highly effective educators 

by supporting the implementation of 

evidence-based practices that prepare, 

develop, or enhance the skills of 

educators. SEED grants allow eligible 

entities to develop, expand, and 

evaluate practices that can serve as 

models to be sustained and 

disseminated. 

Program Authority: Section 2242 of 

the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 

U.S.C. 6672). 

We published a notice of proposed 

definition (NPP) for this program in the 

Federal Register on December 15, 2021 

(86 FR 71207). The NPP contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the definition. 

Except for minor editorial and 

technical revisions, there are no 

differences between the proposed 

definition and the final definition. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, we received seven 

comments, six of which were relevant to 

the proposed definition and considered 

in the analysis. Of the six comments 

addressing the proposed definition, 

three expressed support for the 

definition. Of these three comments, 

one commenter offered a specific 

recommendation for revising the 

definition, and the other two 

commenters raised concerns that the 

definition de-emphasized the SEED 

program’s requirement that national 

nonprofit entities demonstrate evidence 

of educational effectiveness. The 

remaining three comments expressed 

disagreement with the definition, 

arguing that the definition would be too 

restrictive and would limit the potential 

pool of applicants from the nonprofit 

sector. Two commenters raised concerns 

that the definition would impose 

restrictions on nonprofit entities but not 

on institutions of higher education, 

which are also eligible applicants under 

the SEED program. Responses to these 

comments are found in the Analysis of 

the Comments and Changes below. 

Analysis of the Comments and 

Changes: An analysis of the comments 

and of any changes to the proposed 

definition follows. Generally, we do not 

address technical and other minor 

changes, or suggested changes we are 

not authorized to make under the 

applicable statutory authority. In 

addition, we do not address general 

comments that raised concerns not 

directly related to the NPP. We group 

major issues according to subject. 

Comment: In response to the 

proposed definition of ‘‘national 

nonprofit entity,’’ multiple commenters 

expressed general support for the 

definition. However, one commenter, 

while expressing general support for the 

definition, suggested a change to the 

language to specify that the national 

nonprofit entity provides services to 

teachers, principals, or other school 

leaders, rather than teachers, principals, 

and school leaders. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comment regarding the educators to be 

served by the national nonprofit entity 

and recognize the significance of the 

specific area they recommend 

emphasizing in the definition. Upon 

further review, we concur with the 

comment and recognize that this 

revision to the definition is consistent 

with the purposes of the program in 

section 2242(a) of the ESEA, which 

generally contemplate that services be 

provided to teachers, principals, or 

other school leaders. We are also 

clarifying in the definition that ‘‘school 

leader’’ has the meaning ascribed it in 

section 8101 of the ESEA. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(2) of the definition to clarify that a 

national nonprofit entity serves 

teachers, principals, or other school 

leaders and that ‘‘school leader’’ has the 

meaning ascribed it in section 8101 of 

the ESEA. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

opposed the definition’s requirement 

that a nonprofit entity provide services 

in three or more States to be qualified 

as national in scope. The commenters 

noted that the requirement seemed to 

narrow the pool of eligible applicants 

unnecessarily. The commenters 

suggested that the Department focus 

instead on the overall impact of a 

nonprofit entity and look at the number 

of educators served by an entity rather 

than quantifying its geographic reach. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comments on the requirement that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 19389 

nonprofit entities serve educators in 

three or more States to be considered 

national in scope. While we recognize 

the commenters’ concerns about 

potentially narrowing the pool of 

eligible entities and the impact of the 

SEED program, we think that the 

definition provides needed clarity that 

is currently missing from the statute. 

The SEED statute, by modifying the 

term ‘‘nonprofit’’ with the term 

‘‘national,’’ contemplates that only 

nonprofit entities that are national in 

scope receive awards. To give meaning 

to this requirement, the Department has 

determined that a nonprofit entity must 

have tangible effects on educators in 

multiple States to be deemed national. 

At the same time, the Department shares 

the commenters’ concerns about unduly 

narrowing the pool of eligible applicants 

and has addressed that concern by 

setting a threshold of three or more 

States, a threshold that it deems both 

reasonable and easy to document in 

SEED applications. This requirement 

provides clarity and transparency for 

applicants responding to the SEED 

program but is not unduly burdensome. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

raised concern that the provision on 

serving educators in three or more 

States only applies to nonprofit entities 

but does not apply to institutions of 

higher education (IHEs). The 

commenters argued that this approach 

was inconsistent and imposes 

unreasonable restrictions on one class of 

applicants but not the other. 

Discussion: The SEED statute does not 

require IHEs to have a national scope or 

presence. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

expressed concern that the definition 

appears to move the SEED program 

away from the statutory requirement 

that nonprofit entities have a 

demonstrated record of raising student 

academic achievement, graduation rates, 

and rates of higher education 

attendance, matriculation, or 

completion, or of effectiveness in 

providing preparation and professional 

development activities and programs for 

teachers, principals, or other school 

leaders. 

Discussion: The definition does not 

remove any statutory requirements; 

rather, it clarifies that eligible nonprofit 

entities, in addition to demonstrating 

the characteristics noted by 

commenters, must carry out their work 

in three or more States. 

Changes: None. 

Final Definition 

The Department establishes the 

following definition for use in any SEED 

competition in which the term ‘‘national 

nonprofit entity’’ is used in connection 

with the eligibility requirement in 

section 2242 of the ESEA: 

National nonprofit entity means an 

entity that— 

(a) Meets the definition of ‘‘nonprofit’’ 

under 34 CFR 77.1(c); and 

(b) Is of national scope, which 

requires that the entity— 

(1) Provides services in three or more 

States; and 

(2) Demonstrates a proven record of 

serving or benefitting teachers, 

principals, or other school leaders (as 

defined in section 8101 of the ESEA) 

across these States. 

This document does not preclude us 

from proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This document does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we 

choose to use this definition, we invite 

applications through a notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing the final definition 

only on a reasoned determination that 

its benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on an analysis of anticipated 

costs and benefits, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
19390 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this regulatory action does not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

Size Standards define proprietary 

institutions as small businesses if they 

are independently owned and operated, 

are not dominant in their field of 

operation, and have total annual 

revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit 

institutions are defined as small entities 

if they are independently owned and 

operated and not dominant in their field 

of operation. Public institutions are 

defined as small organizations if they 

are operated by a government 

overseeing a population below 50,000. 

The small entities that this regulatory 

action will affect are nonprofit 

organizations and IHEs. We believe that 

the costs imposed on an applicant by 

the final definition will be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

the final definition will outweigh any 

costs incurred by the applicant. 

Participation in the SEED program is 

voluntary. We expect that in 

determining whether to apply for SEED 

program funds, an eligible entity will 

evaluate the costs of preparing an 

application and weigh them against the 

benefits likely to be achieved by 

receiving a SEED program grant. An 

eligible entity will probably apply only 

if it determines that the likely benefits 

exceed the costs of preparing an 

application. Therefore, we believe that 

the definition will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

The final definition contains 

information collection requirements that 

are approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1894–0006; the final 

definition does not affect the currently 

approved data collection. 

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 Federal 

financial assistance. This document 

provides early notification of our 

specific plans and actions for this 

program. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document in an accessible format. 

The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at: 

www.govinfo.gov. 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 Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Ruth E. Ryder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Programs Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06965 Filed 4–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0075; FRL–9428–02– 

R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Kansas; 2015 

Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Kansas as 

meeting the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirement that each State’s SIP 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) in any other state. 

This action is being taken in accordance 

with the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 4, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0075. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Stone, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7714; 

email address: stone.william@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On February 7, 2022, EPA published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) for the State of Kansas. See 87 

FR 7071. The NPRM proposed approval 

of a Kansas SIP revision that addresses 

the CAA requirement prohibiting 

emissions from the state that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in other states. See CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (the ‘‘good neighbor 

provision’’). The SIP revision was 

submitted to EPA by Kansas on 

September 27, 2018. The rationale for 

EPA’s proposed action is given in the 

NPRM and will not be repeated here. In 

section IV. of the NPRM, EPA 

erroneously stated that Kansas 

submitted the Kansas submission on 

October 1, 2018. The submission was 

received on September 27, 2018. 

EPA received one public comment in 

support of the proposed action. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES