81 FR 63099 - Secretary's Final Supplemental Priority for Discretionary Grant Programs
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 178 (September 14, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 178 (September 14, 2016)
| Page Range | 63099-63102 | |
| FR Document | 2016-22104 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 63099-63102] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-22104] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter I RIN 1875-AA11 [Docket ID ED-2016-OS-0002] Secretary's Final Supplemental Priority for Discretionary Grant Programs AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Final priority. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: To further support a comprehensive education agenda and to address concentrated poverty and related segregation in our Nation's schools, the Secretary of Education establishes an additional priority primarily for use in any discretionary grant program focused on elementary and secondary education, as appropriate, for fiscal year (FY) 2016 and future years. The Secretary adds this priority to the existing supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs that were published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (2014 Supplemental Priorities). This priority reflects our efforts to address emerging needs in education. DATES: This supplemental priority is effective October 14, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ramin Taheri, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5E343, Washington, DC 20202- 5930. Telephone: (202) 453-5961 or by email: [email protected]. 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: Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474. We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) in the Federal Register on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36833). That document contained background information and our reasons for proposing the additional priority. Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 13 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority. Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments follows. We group our discussion according to the general issues raised. We do not address technical and other minor changes. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed priority would adversely affect rural communities and students who reside within them, where the geographic isolation of students from one particular racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group would render efforts to diversify schools difficult or impossible. Many of these commenters expressed support for the priority and the importance of addressing the growing segregation and inequality in our Nation's schools, but suggested that the Department use the priority as an invitational priority, as opposed to a competitive preference or absolute priority, to ensure that rural applicants are not unfairly disadvantaged in grant competitions. Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concern that the priority may not be appropriate or beneficial for rural communities whose geographical constraints make increasing socioeconomic diversity infeasible. First, we note that increasing educational equity for rural students and communities is a focus area for the Department of Education (the Department); for example, Priority 4--Supporting High- Need Students from the 2014 Supplemental Priorities includes language that allows the Department to prioritize projects designed to improve outcomes for students served by rural local educational agencies (LEAs). Second, we acknowledge that solutions to educational challenges are often different in rural, urban, and suburban communities. We note, however, that the Department has discretion in how and when it will use this priority (including whether to use it as an invitational or other type of priority), and does not intend to use this priority in a way that would disadvantage rural applicants. Rather, it is our intention to use this priority strategically to encourage diversity only in those situations where we believe such efforts are most appropriate and best support the possibility of increasing socioeconomic diversity in schools. Changes: None. Comment: In addition to concerns related to geographically isolated, rural communities, many commenters raised questions regarding the utility of the priority in Indian country. Specifically, these commenters expressed concerns about how the priority would affect American Indian or Alaska Native students who attend schools in rural areas, on tribal lands that are [[Page 63100]] geographically isolated, or in villages or communities that are not accessible, legally or physically, to students who are not members of a particular American Indian or Alaska Native tribe. One commenter suggested the Department can protect against unintended negative impacts on Native students by including a race-based preference whenever using the priority for socioeconomic diversity. Discussion: We understand and appreciate the concerns raised with respect to Native students and their communities. As with rural LEAs, however, the Department believes that the 2014 Supplemental Priorities include a priority to help address these concerns; specifically, Priority 4--Serving High-Need Students, which allows the Department to prioritize projects designed to serve students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes, provides a sufficient basis for the Department to channel Federal resources toward improved outcomes for Native students. With respect to the comment suggesting that the Department include a race-based preference in tandem with the priority, we note that Priority 12--Promoting Diversity from the 2014 Supplemental Priorities includes language that allows the Department to focus on projects designed to increase racial and ethnic diversity. Finally, as mentioned in the discussion of the comments regarding rural communities, while the Department declines to make any changes to the priority based on these comments, we reiterate our intention to use this priority strategically to encourage diversity only in those situations where we believe such efforts are most appropriate and we do not intend to use it in a way that would adversely affect Native students. Changes: None. Comment: Several commenters expressed support for increasing diversity in our Nation's public schools. One commenter suggested that a focus on diversity must be accompanied by concerted efforts to foster and maintain positive and supportive school climates. The commenter further urged the Department to issue guidance or other technical assistance documents related to school diversity. Finally, the commenter suggested that the Department ensure that potential grant applicants wishing to focus on diversity initiate and maintain communications with their local communities. Discussion: We appreciate the comments in support of the priority and the Department's focus on increasing diversity. The Department agrees that a focus on positive school climate is an important part of improving outcomes for all students. Moreover, a positive, supportive school climate may be essential to ensuring that a diverse student body achieves true cohesiveness. While we decline to make any changes to the priority based on this comment, the Department remains committed to exploring avenues to encourage safe, supportive, and positive school climates. For example, Priority 13--Improving School Climate, Behavioral Supports, and Correctional Education from the 2014 Supplemental Priorities offers opportunities to direct Federal resources toward projects designed to improve school climate. We appreciate the comment suggesting that the Department issue guidance or technical assistance documents about school diversity. We agree that additional resources may be helpful in assisting LEAs and communities in undertaking efforts to diversify their schools. We note that there are existing resources, such as the Department's Equity Assistance Centers, that stand ready to offer technical assistance related to school climate issues based on race, national origin, sex, and religion. Moreover, the Department continues to explore all opportunities to develop and issue guidance materials in this and other important policy areas. Finally, the Department agrees with the recommendation that grant applicants collaborate and communicate with their local communities. Public engagement is an integral part of any comprehensive, successful school diversity strategy. In that regard, the priority includes language that contemplates community input, robust family and community involvement, and other forms of public engagement. Changes: None. Comment: None. Discussion: We are revising paragraph (d) to allow the Department more flexibility to tailor the priority for each competition in which the priority is used in order to narrow the focus on the strategies proving most effective in a specific context or on where the greatest needs are from year to year. We note that revisions to paragraph (d) would still allow the Department to use the paragraph in its entirety, as appropriate. Changes: In the introductory language, subparagraph (ii), and subparagraph (vi) of paragraph (d), we have revised the priority to provide the Department the flexibility described above. In addition, we have revised the wording in subparagraphs (ii), (v), and (vi) so that each will stand better on its own should it be used in isolation in a grant competition. Final Priority: The Secretary establishes the following priority for use primarily in any discretionary grant competition focused on elementary and secondary education, as appropriate, in FY 2016 and future years. This priority is in addition to the 2014 Supplemental Priorities. Priority--Increasing Socioeconomic Diversity in Schools Projects that are designed to increase socioeconomic diversity in educational settings by addressing one or more of the following: (a) Using established survey or data-collection methods to identify socioeconomic stratification and related barriers to socioeconomic diversity at the classroom, school, district, community, or regional level. (b) Developing, evaluating, or providing technical assistance on evidence-based policies or strategies designed to increase socioeconomic diversity in schools. (c) Designing or implementing, with community input, education funding strategies, such as the use of weighted per-pupil allocations of local, State, and eligible Federal funds, to provide incentives for schools and districts to increase socioeconomic diversity. (d) Developing or implementing policies or strategies to increase socioeconomic diversity in schools that are evidence-based; demonstrate ongoing, robust family and community involvement, including a process for intensive public engagement and consultation; and meet one or more of the following factors-- (i) Are carried out on one or more of an intra-district, inter- district, community, or regional basis; (ii) Reflect coordination with other relevant government entities, including housing or transportation authorities, to the extent practicable; (iii) Are based on an existing, public diversity plan or diversity needs assessment; and (iv) Include one or both of the following strategies-- (A) Establishing school assignment or admissions policies that are designed to give preference to low-income students, students from low- performing schools, or students residing in neighborhoods experiencing concentrated poverty to attend higher-performing schools; or (B) Establishing or expanding schools that are designed to attract substantial numbers of students from different socioeconomic backgrounds, such as magnet or theme schools, charter schools, or other schools of choice. Types of Priorities: When inviting applications for a competition using one [[Page 63101]] or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows: Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)). Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)). Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)). This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements. Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities and definitions, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may-- (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an ``economically significant'' rule); (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order. This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency-- (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those 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 this final priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563. We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from regulatory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities. Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The final priority will not impose significant costs on entities that would receive assistance through the Department's discretionary grant programs. Additionally, the benefits of implementing the final priority outweigh any associated costs because it will allow the Department to focus discretionary grant competitions on this important area. Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the final priority will be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application for a discretionary grant program that is using the priority in its competition. Because the costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with program funds, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for any eligible applicants, including small entities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: For these reasons as well, the Secretary certifies that these final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Intergovernmental Review: Some of the programs affected by this final priority are 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 these programs. Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal [[Page 63102]] Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. Dated: September 9, 2016. John B. King, Jr., Secretary of Education. [FR Doc. 2016-22104 Filed 9-13-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 63099
unless authorized by the Captain of the Dated: September 8, 2016. We group our discussion according to
Port or his Designated Representative, or M.W. Raymond, the general issues raised. We do not
is otherwise provided by exemption or Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the address technical and other minor
waiver provisions in these security zone Port, Puget Sound. changes.
regulations. [FR Doc. 2016–22098 Filed 9–13–16; 8:45 am] Comment: Several commenters
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
expressed concern that the proposed
DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR priority would adversely affect rural
165.1321 will be enforced from 6 a.m. communities and students who reside
on September 15, 2016, through 11:59 within them, where the geographic
p.m. on September 20, 2016, for the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
isolation of students from one particular
security zone indentified in paragraph 34 CFR Chapter I racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group
(c)(2) of that section, unless cancelled would render efforts to diversify schools
sooner by the Captain of the Port. RIN 1875–AA11 difficult or impossible. Many of these
[Docket ID ED–2016–OS–0002] commenters expressed support for the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If priority and the importance of
you have questions on this notice of Secretary’s Final Supplemental Priority addressing the growing segregation and
enforcement, call or email Chief for Discretionary Grant Programs inequality in our Nation’s schools, but
Warrant Officer Jeffrey Zappen, Sector suggested that the Department use the
Puget Sound Waterways Management AGENCY: Department of Education. priority as an invitational priority, as
Division, Coast Guard; telephone 206– ACTION: Final priority. opposed to a competitive preference or
217–6076, email absolute priority, to ensure that rural
SectorPugetSoundWWM@uscg.mil. SUMMARY: To further support a
comprehensive education agenda and to applicants are not unfairly
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast address concentrated poverty and disadvantaged in grant competitions.
Guard will enforce regulations in 33 Discussion: We appreciate the
related segregation in our Nation’s
CFR 165.1321 for the Sitcum Waterway commenters’ concern that the priority
schools, the Secretary of Education
may not be appropriate or beneficial for
Security Zone identified in paragraph establishes an additional priority rural communities whose geographical
(c)(2) of that section, from September primarily for use in any discretionary constraints make increasing
15, 2016, at 6 a.m. through 11:59 p.m. grant program focused on elementary socioeconomic diversity infeasible.
on September 20, 2016, unless cancelled and secondary education, as First, we note that increasing
sooner by the Captain of the Port or appropriate, for fiscal year (FY) 2016 educational equity for rural students
Designated Representative. Under the and future years. The Secretary adds and communities is a focus area for the
provisions of 33 CFR 165.1321, the this priority to the existing Department of Education (the
security zone will provide for the supplemental priorities and definitions Department); for example, Priority 4—
regulation of vessel traffic in the vicinity for discretionary grant programs that Supporting High-Need Students from
of military cargo loading facilities in the were published in the Federal Register the 2014 Supplemental Priorities
navigable waters of the United States. on December 10, 2014 (2014 includes language that allows the
The security zones also exclude persons Supplemental Priorities). This priority Department to prioritize projects
and vessels from the immediate vicinity reflects our efforts to address emerging designed to improve outcomes for
of these facilities during military cargo needs in education. students served by rural local
loading and unloading operations. In DATES: This supplemental priority is educational agencies (LEAs).
addition, the regulation establishes effective October 14, 2016. Second, we acknowledge that
requirements for all vessels to obtain FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: solutions to educational challenges are
permission of the COTP or Designated Ramin Taheri, U.S. Department of often different in rural, urban, and
Representative, including the Vessel Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., suburban communities. We note,
Traffic Service (VTS), to enter, move Room 5E343, Washington, DC 20202– however, that the Department has
within, or exit these security zones 5930. Telephone: (202) 453–5961 or by discretion in how and when it will use
when they are enforced. Entry into this email: ramin.taheri@ed.gov. this priority (including whether to use
zone is prohibited unless authorized by If you use a telecommunications it as an invitational or other type of
the Captain of the Port or a Designated device for the deaf (TDD) or a text priority), and does not intend to use this
Representative, or is otherwise allowed telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay priority in a way that would
under exemption or waiver provisions Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– disadvantage rural applicants. Rather, it
in 33 CFR 165.1321(h) or (i). 8339. is our intention to use this priority
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
strategically to encourage diversity only
This notice of enforcement is issued in those situations where we believe
under authority of 33 CFR 165.1321 and Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3, such efforts are most appropriate and
5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this 3474.
best support the possibility of increasing
notice of enforcement in the Federal We published a notice of proposed socioeconomic diversity in schools.
Register, the Coast Guard will provide priority (NPP) in the Federal Register Changes: None.
the maritime community with on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36833). That Comment: In addition to concerns
notification of this enforcement period document contained background related to geographically isolated, rural
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
via marine information broadcasts and information and our reasons for communities, many commenters raised
on-scene assets. If the COTP determines proposing the additional priority. questions regarding the utility of the
that the regulated area need not be Public Comment: In response to our priority in Indian country. Specifically,
enforced for the full duration stated in invitation in the NPP, 13 parties these commenters expressed concerns
this notice of enforcement, a Broadcast submitted comments on the proposed about how the priority would affect
Notice to Mariners may be used to grant priority. American Indian or Alaska Native
general permission to enter the Analysis of Comments and Changes: students who attend schools in rural
regulated area. An analysis of the comments follows. areas, on tribal lands that are
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:49 Sep 13, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM 14SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_63277/page/1.svg)
![63102 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Register. Free Internet access to the online instructions for submitting a pollutant. These increments are
official edition of the Federal Register comments. Once submitted, comments codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40
and the Code of Federal Regulations is cannot be edited or removed from CFR 52.21(c).
available via the Federal Digital System Regulations.gov. For either manner of
II. Summary of State Submittal
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you submission, the EPA may publish any
can view this document, as well as all comment received to its public docket. On July 25, 2014, the VT DEC
other documents of this Department Do not submit electronically any submitted a revision to its state
published in the Federal Register, in information you consider to be implementation plan (SIP) primarily
text or Adobe Portable Document Confidential Business Information (CBI) addressing permitting requirements for
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must or other information whose disclosure is PM2.5 emissions. In a letter dated July
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is restricted by statute. Multimedia 13, 2016, VT DEC withdrew some, but
available free at the site. submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be not all, of the revisions the State
You may also access documents of the accompanied by a written comment. requested in its 2014 SIP submittal. The
Department published in the Federal The written comment is considered the State withdrew these provisions for
Register by using the article search official comment and should include various reasons; either because more
feature at: www.federalregister.gov. discussion of all points you wish to information would be needed before
Specifically, through the advanced make. The EPA will generally not certain provisions could be approved by
search feature at this site, you can limit consider comments or comment EPA into the SIP, one provision was
your search to documents published by contents located outside of the primary erroneously submitted, or Vermont
the Department. submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or intends in the near future to revise
other file sharing system). For certain provisions and resubmit them to
Dated: September 9, 2016.
additional submission methods, please EPA. On July 20, 2016, EPA’s Region I
John B. King, Jr., Administrator signed a direct final
Secretary of Education.
contact the person identified in the ‘‘For
Further Information Contact’’ section. notice approving the remaining
[FR Doc. 2016–22104 Filed 9–13–16; 8:45 am]
For the full EPA public comment policy, revisions except for revisions Vermont
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
information about CBI or multimedia made to its Air Pollution Control
submissions, and general guidance on Regulations (APCR), Table 2 (Prevention
making effective comments, please visit of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ Increments) and Table 3 (Levels of
AGENCY commenting-epa-dockets. Significant Impact).
Vermont revised Table 2 by adding
40 CFR Part 52 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ida increments for PM2.5 as well as some
E. McDonnell, Manager, Air Permits, minor grammatical changes. Vermont
[EPA–R01–OAR–2016–0441; A–1–FRL– Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit,
9952–11–Region I] revised Table 3 by changing the table’s
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. title, removing the level of significant
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA impact for Total Suspended Particles,
Air Plan Approval; VT; Prevention of
New England Regional Office, 5 Post and adding levels for PM2.5. Tables 2
Significant Deterioration, PM2.5
Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05–2), and 3 address different aspects of
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Boston, MA 02109–3912, phone number permitting. Table 2 addresses the
Agency (EPA). (617) 918–1653, fax number (617) 918– amount of a pollutant (increment
ACTION: Direct final rule. 0653, email McDonnell.Ida@epa.gov. consumption) a major new or modified
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: source may contribute to the ambient air
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Throughout this document whenever consistent with the CAA’s requirements.
Agency (EPA) is approving a State
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean Table 3 addresses situations in which
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
EPA. Vermont’s regulations would require
submitted by the State of Vermont. The
Organization of this document. The emissions offsets, even for major new or
revision sets the amount of PM2.5
following outline is provided to aid in modified sources that are subject to PSD
increment sources are permitted to
locating information in this preamble. preconstruction permitting
consume when obtaining a prevention
I. Background and Purpose requirements.
of significant deterioration (PSD)
preconstruction permit and requires II. Summary of State Submittal III. Final Action
III. Final Action
PM2.5 emission offsets under certain EPA has found the PSD increment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
circumstances. This action is being V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews values added to Table 2 to be consistent
taken in accordance with the Clean Air with 40 CFR 51.166(c) and has also
Act. I. Background and Purpose
found that the increment values meet
DATES: This direct final rule will be On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the the anti-back sliding requirements of
effective November 14, 2016, unless final rule on the ‘‘Prevention of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA receives adverse comments by Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Therefore, EPA is approving revised
October 14, 2016. If adverse comments Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Table 2 into the Vermont SIP.
are received, EPA will publish a timely Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Vermont revised Table 3 by adding
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and thresholds for PM2.5 for Class I, II, and
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register informing the public Significant Monitoring Concentration III areas. Major new or modified sources
that the rule will not take effect. (SMC)’’ (2010 PSD Rule). See 75 FR subject to PSD permitting requirements
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 64864. This rule established several must obtain emissions offsets if the
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– components for making PSD permitting listed thresholds would be exceeded in
OAR–2016–0441 at http:// determinations for PM2.5, including a an area found not to be attaining the
www.regulations.gov, or via email to system of ‘‘increments,’’ which is the national ambient air quality standard.
McDonnell.Ida@epa.gov. For comments mechanism used to estimate significant The thresholds in Table 3 for PM2.5 for
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the deterioration of ambient air quality for Class II and Class III areas are consistent
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:49 Sep 13, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM 14SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_63277/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-09-14 02:26:53
Document Modified: 2016-09-14 02:26:53
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final priority. | |
| Dates | This supplemental priority is effective October 14, 2016. | |
| Contact | Ramin Taheri, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5E343, Washington, DC 20202- 5930. Telephone: (202) 453-5961 or by email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 63099 | |
| RIN Number | 1875-AA11 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR