82 FR 35445 - Definitions and Selection Criteria That Apply to Direct Grant Programs
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 145 (July 31, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 145 (July 31, 2017)
| Page Range | 35445-35451 | |
| FR Document | 2017-15989 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2017)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 35445-35451] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-15989] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Parts 75 and 77 [Docket ID ED-2017-OII-0032] RIN 1855-AA13 Definitions and Selection Criteria That Apply to Direct Grant Programs AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Final rule with request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Secretary is issuing this rule in order to better align the regulations with the definition of ``evidence-based'' in the statutory authority. These changes mean that all competitive grant programs in the Department can continue to use the same provisions for evidence-based grant-making. DATES: Effective date: These regulations are effective July 31, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 31, 2017. Comment due date: We will accept comments on or before August 30, 2017. We will consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under ``How to use Regulations.gov.'' Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver your comments about these final regulations, address them to Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202-5900. Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments received from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202- 5900. Telephone: (202) 205-5231 or by email: [email protected]. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1- 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As noted above, these regulations are effective on July 31, 2017. However, for grant award competitions announced by the Department in the Federal Register prior to the effective date of these regulations, unless the notice specifies otherwise, the provisions of 34 CFR parts 75 and 77 revised or removed through this notice of final regulations continue to apply to competitions and grants awarded under those notices inviting applications. Invitation To Comment These regulations do not establish substantive policy changes, but instead make technical changes to existing regulations. Since these regulations make only technical changes, a comment period is not required. However, we are interested in whether you think we should make any changes in these regulations and thus we are inviting your comments. We will consider these comments in determining whether to make further technical changes to the regulations or engage in additional rulemaking. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the regulations. See ADDRESSES for instructions on how to submit comments. We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirements of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these regulations. Please let us know of any additional ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs and activities. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in Room 6W245, 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 time to inspect comments, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Final Regulatory Changes I. Selection Criteria Background: The regulations in subpart D of 34 CFR part 75 set forth the general requirements that govern the Department's selection of grantees for direct grant awards. For those direct grant programs that make discretionary grant awards, the Secretary uses selection criteria to evaluate applications submitted under those programs. The regulations establish a [[Page 35446]] menu of selection criteria that the Secretary may use in any Department discretionary grant competition. 34 CFR Part 75 Sec. 75.210 General Selection Criteria Current Regulations: Current Sec. 75.210(c) lists 29 factors under the ``Quality of the Project Design'' selection criterion. Section 75.210(h) includes 12 factors under the ``Quality of the Project Evaluation'' selection criterion. Final Regulations and Reasons: We make the following changes to the selection criteria in Sec. 75.210(c) and (h): (1) Add one selection factor under the ``Quality of the Project Design'' criterion (Sec. 75.210(c)) to clarify that the Department may assess the extent to which an applicant's proposed project would represent a faithful adaptation of the evidence cited in support of its project. This factor is designed to assess whether projects would in fact implement the evidence cited as support, such that the project is ``evidence-based'' as described in section 8101(21)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (2) For clarification, add two selection factors under the ``Quality of the Project Evaluation'' criterion (Sec. 75.210(h)) focused on (a) the qualifications of an applicant's evaluator; and (b) the sufficiency of resources to carry out the project evaluation. We also revise two factors under the ``Quality of the Project Design'' criterion (Sec. 75.210(c)) and four factors under the ``Quality of the Project Evaluation'' criterion (Sec. 75.210(h)) to align terminology with the revised evidence definitions in 34 CFR part 77. Specifically, the regulations: (1) Replace references to ``evidence of promise'' and ``strong theory'' with ``promising evidence'' and ``demonstrates a rationale,'' respectively. (2) Align terminology with the revised definitions in 34 CFR 77.1(c) to include the term ``project component'' and clarify that the What Works Clearinghouse standards are described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook. We are making these revisions to improve the menu of selection criteria and factors by better aligning them to the evidence-related definitions in 34 CFR part 77. We make these revisions in conjunction with the amendments to the definitions in 34 CFR part 77, which, as discussed elsewhere in this document, we also revise to align with the evidence provisions in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and for clarity. The final regulations do not change the way the Secretary uses the current and new selection criteria and factors. The Secretary will continue to use selection criteria that are consistent with the purpose of the program and permitted under the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Evidence Preferences and Priorities Sec. 75.226 What procedures does the Secretary use if the Secretary decides to give special consideration to applications supported by strong evidence of effectiveness, moderate evidence of effectiveness, or evidence of promise? Current Regulations: Under Sec. 75.226, the Secretary may establish a competitive preference or absolute priority for projects supported by strong evidence of effectiveness, moderate evidence of effectiveness, or evidence of promise, as those terms are currently defined in 34 CFR part 77. Final Regulations and Reasons: The Secretary makes technical revisions to the title and text of this section to describe procedures for giving special consideration to applications supported by strong, moderate, or promising evidence, which are the evidence-related terms used in the ESEA. We include definitions for these terms elsewhere in this document. These technical changes ensure that discretionary grant programs authorized by the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, can establish evidence- based priorities under Sec. 75.226 and allow the Department the option to use one set of uniform evidence standards for all discretionary grant programs across each program's authorizing statute. III. Evidence Definitions Background: Section 77.1(c) establishes definitions that, unless a statute or regulation provides otherwise, apply to the regulations in title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations and can be used in Department grant competitions. This section includes a number of definitions that support the Department's use of evidence in grant competitions. The ESSA amended the ESEA to include a new definition of ``evidence-based'' that necessitates changes to these definitions. 34 CFR Part 77 Sec. 77.1 Definitions That Apply to All Department Programs Current Regulations: Section 77.1(c) establishes definitions that, unless a statute or regulation provides otherwise, apply to the regulations in title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations and can be used in Department grant competitions. Final Regulations and Reasons: We establish new, and revise some existing, definitions to (1) ensure alignment with provision in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, providing a single set of evidence definitions; and (2) make minor clarifying revisions to existing provisions. In these final regulations, we: (1) Add a definition of ``evidence-based'' that incorporates the four levels of evidence in section 8101(21)(A) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. (2) Add a definition for ``project component'' as a single, clarifying term for what may be included in a project. The term clarifies that ``policy'' may be one component of a project; encompasses ``an activity, strategy, or intervention,'' to be consistent with the definition of ``evidence-based'' in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA; and includes ``process,'' ``product,'' and ``practice,'' which were in the evidence definitions in 34 CFR 77.1(c) (e.g., strong evidence of effectiveness) prior to these final regulations. (3) Remove the definitions of ``large sample'' and ``multi-site sample'' and instead incorporate them into the new ``moderate evidence'' and ``strong evidence'' definitions, to streamline these definitions. (4) Replace the term ``strong theory'' with the term ``demonstrates a rationale,'' as this is the fourth level of evidence in the definition of ``evidence-based'' in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. (5) Replace the term ``evidence of promise'' with the term ``promising evidence,'' to align with the definition of ``evidence- based'' in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. In the definition of ``promising evidence,'' we clarify-- How practice guides and intervention reports prepared by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), in alignment with the WWC standards incorporated in the definition, can provide promising evidence; How the Department already reviews single studies to determine whether they qualify under this level of evidence; and That certain quasi-experimental studies and experimental studies that do not meet WWC standards can qualify as promising evidence, as the previous ``evidence of promise'' definition implied. That correlational studies with statistical controls for selection bias must be well-designed and well-implemented to qualify as promising [[Page 35447]] evidence, as the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, provides. (6) Replace the term ``moderate evidence of effectiveness'' with the term ``moderate evidence,'' which is used in the ESEA definition of ``evidence-based.'' In the definition of ``moderate evidence,'' we clarify-- How practice guides and intervention reports prepared by the WWC, in alignment with the WWC standards incorporated in the definition, can provide moderate evidence; How the Department already reviews single studies to determine whether they qualify under this level of evidence; and Through language regarding ``relevant findings,'' that there must be a link between the proposed activities, strategies, and interventions and specific statistically significant effects, as required under the definition of ``evidence-based'' in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. (7) Replace the term ``randomized controlled trial'' with the term ``experimental study,'' to align with the definition of ``evidence- based,'' in section 8101(21) specifically with regard to ``strong evidence.'' In this new definition of ``strong evidence,'' we clarify the types of studies that can qualify as experimental studies-- including, but not limited to, randomized controlled trials--as provided in the applicable WWC Handbook. (8) Replace the term ``strong evidence of effectiveness'' with the term ``strong evidence,'' which is used in the definition of ``evidence-based'' in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. In the definition of ``strong evidence,'' we clarify-- How practice guides and intervention reports prepared by the WWC, in alignment with the WWC standards incorporated in the definition, can provide promising evidence under the definition of ``evidence-based'' in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA; How the Department already reviews single studies to determine whether they qualify under this level of evidence; and Through language regarding ``relevant findings,'' that there must be a link between the proposed activities, strategies, and interventions and specific statistically significant effects, as required under the definition of ``evidence-based'' in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. (9) Replace the term ``What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards'' with the term ``What Works Clearinghouse Handbook,'' to clarify that the Handbook's procedures--not just standards--are relevant to evidence determinations, consistent with current practice. We also incorporate this Handbook, which provides a detailed description of the standards and procedures of the WWC, by reference. The WWC is an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which was established under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. The WWC is an important part of IES's strategy to use rigorous and relevant research, evaluation, and statistics to inform decisions in the field of education. The WWC provides critical assessments of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of education programs, policies, products, and practices (referred to as ``interventions'') and a range of publications and tools summarizing this evidence. The WWC meets the need for credible, succinct information by reviewing research studies; assessing the quality of the research; summarizing the evidence of the effectiveness of programs, policies, products, and practices on student outcomes and other outcomes related to education; and disseminating its findings broadly. This Handbook is available to interested parties at the Web site address included in the regulation (https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks). (10) Make minor clarifying changes to the definition of ``logic model'' so it is more easily understood. (11) Make minor clarifying changes to the definition of ``quasi- experimental design study'' to align with terminology in the revised Sec. 77.1(c). (12) Make minor clarifying changes to the definition of ``relevant outcome'' to align with terminology in the revised Sec. 77.1(c). Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these regulations make technical changes only and do not establish substantive policy. The regulations are therefore exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). However, the Department is providing a 30- day comment period and invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments. The Department will consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments. The APA also generally requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Again, because these final regulations are merely technical, there is good cause to make them effective on the day they are published. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 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. Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2017, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. The final regulations are not a significant regulatory action. Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply. We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in [[Page 35448]] Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency-- (1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices. Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.'' We are issuing these final regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, the Department believes that these final regulations are 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. Potential Costs and Benefits Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action and have determined that these regulations would not impose additional costs. We believe any additional costs imposed by these final regulations will be negligible, primarily because they reflect technical changes which do not impose additional burden. Moreover, we believe any costs will be significantly outweighed by the potential benefits of making necessary clarifications and ensuring consistency among the Education Department General Administrative Regulations and section 8101(21) of ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Clarity of the Regulations Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments on how to make these regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: Are the requirements in the regulations clearly stated? Do the regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity? Does the format of the regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? Would the regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example, Sec. 75.210.) Could the description of the regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the regulations easier to understand? If so, how? What else could we do to make the regulations easier to understand? To send any comments that concern how the Department could make these regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the ADDRESSES section. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The Secretary certifies that these regulations do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. We display the valid OMB control number assigned to a collection of information in final regulations at the end of the affected section of the regulations. Intergovernmental Review This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.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 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. List of Subjects 34 CFR Part 75 Accounting, Copyright, Education, Grant programs--education, Inventions and patents, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Youth organizations. 34 CFR Part 77 Education, Grant programs--education, Incorporation by reference. Dated: July 25, 2017. Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends parts 75 and 77 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 75--DIRECT GRANT PROGRAMS 0 1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted. 0 2. Section 75.210 is amended by: 0 a. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(xxviii) and (xxix); 0 b. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(xxx); and 0 c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(viii) through (xii); and 0 d. Adding paragraph (h)(2)(xiii). The revisions and addition read as follows: [[Page 35449]] Sec. 75.210 General selection criteria. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) * * * (xxviii) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)). (xxix) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)). (xxx) The extent to which the proposed project represents a faithful adaptation of the evidence cited in support of the proposed project. * * * * * (h) * * * (2) * * * (viii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards without reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)). (ix) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards with or without reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)). (x) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) about the project's effectiveness. (xi) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation. (xii) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and independence, of the evaluator. (xiii) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to conduct the project evaluation effectively. * * * * * 0 3. Revise Sec. 75.226 to read as follows: Sec. 75.226 What procedures does the Secretary use if the Secretary decides to give special consideration to applications supported by strong, moderate, or promising evidence? (a) As used in this section, ``strong evidence'' is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c). (b) As used in this section, ``moderate evidence'' is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c). (c) As used in this section, ``promising evidence'' is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c). (d) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of applications supported by strong, moderate, or promising evidence is appropriate, the Secretary may establish a separate competition under the procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), or provide competitive preference under the procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2), for applications supported by-- (1) Evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of ``strong evidence''; (2) Evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of ``moderate evidence''; or (3) Evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of ``promising evidence.'' PART 77--DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS 0 3. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted. 0 4. Section 77.1(c) is amended by: 0 a. Adding, in alphabetical order, a definition for ``Demonstrates a rationale''. 0 b. Removing the definition of ``Evidence of promise''. 0 c. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Evidence-based'' and ``Experimental study''. 0 d. Removing the definition of ``Large sample''. 0 e. Revising the definition of ``Logic model''. 0 f. Adding, in alphabetical order, a definition for ``Moderate evidence''. 0 g. Removing the definitions of ``Moderate evidence of effectiveness'' and ``Multi-site sample''. 0 h. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Project component'' and ``Promising evidence''. 0 i. Revising the definitions of ``Quasi-experimental design study'' and ``Relevant outcome''. 0 j. Adding, in alphabetical order, a definition for ``Strong evidence''. 0 k. Removing the definitions of ``Strong evidence of effectiveness'', ``Strong theory'', and ``What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards''. 0 l. Adding, in alphabetical order, a definition for ``What Works Clearinghouse Handbook''. The additions and revisions read as follows: Sec. 77.1 Definitions that apply to all Department programs. * * * * * (c) * * * Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes. * * * * * Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale. Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook: (i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group). (ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes. (iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment. * * * * * Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes. * * * * * Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following: [[Page 35450]] (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``strong evidence base'' or ``moderate evidence base'' for the corresponding practice guide recommendation; (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``positive effect'' or ``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant outcome based on a ``medium to large'' extent of evidence, with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or (iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that-- (A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations; (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome; (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement. * * * * * Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers). * * * * * Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following: (i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a ``strong evidence base'' or ``moderate evidence base'' for the corresponding practice guide recommendation; (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a ``positive effect'' or ``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or (iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that-- (A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group); and (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome. * * * * * Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation (e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook. * * * * * Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program. * * * * * Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following: (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``strong evidence base'' for the corresponding practice guide recommendation; (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``positive effect'' on a relevant outcome based on a ``medium to large'' extent of evidence, with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or (iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that-- (A) Meets WWC standards without reservations; (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome; (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement. * * * * * What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 34 CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the Handbook documentation. * * * * * 0 5. Section 77.2 is added to read as follows: Sec. 77.2 Incorporation by Reference. (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance by email at [email protected], and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. (b) Institute of Education Sciences, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20202, (202) 245-6940, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks. (1) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, [[Page 35451]] Version 3.0, March 2014, IBR approved for Sec. 77.1. (2) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 2.1, September 2011, IBR approved for Sec. 77.1. [FR Doc. 2017-15989 Filed 7-27-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 145 / Monday, July 31, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 35445
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION or via postal mail, commercial delivery, However, we are interested in whether
CONTACT. or hand delivery. We will not accept you think we should make any changes
Electronic Access to This Document: comments submitted by fax or by email in these regulations and thus we are
The official version of this document is or those submitted after the comment inviting your comments. We will
the document published in the Federal period. To ensure that we do not receive consider these comments in
Register. Free internet access to the duplicate copies, please submit your determining whether to make further
official edition of the Federal Register comments only once. In addition, please technical changes to the regulations or
and the Code of Federal Regulations is include the Docket ID at the top of your engage in additional rulemaking. To
available via the Federal Digital System comments. ensure that your comments have
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to maximum effect, we urge you to identify
can view this document, as well as all www.regulations.gov to submit your clearly the specific section or sections of
other documents of this Department comments electronically. Information the regulations that each of your
published in the Federal Register, in on using Regulations.gov, including comments addresses and to arrange your
text or Portable Document Format instructions for accessing agency comments in the same order as the
(PDF). To use PDF you must have documents, submitting comments, and regulations. See ADDRESSES for
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is viewing the docket, is available on the instructions on how to submit
available free at the site. site under ‘‘How to use comments.
You may also access documents of the Regulations.gov.’’ We invite you to assist us in
Department published in the Federal • Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, complying with the specific
Register by using the article search or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver requirements of Executive Orders 12866
feature at: www.federalregister.gov. your comments about these final and 13563 and their overall
Specifically, through the advanced regulations, address them to Kelly requirements of reducing regulatory
search feature at this site, you can limit Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, burden that might result from these
your search to documents published by 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room regulations. Please let us know of any
the Department. 4W312, Washington, DC 20202–5900. additional ways we could reduce
Dated: July 25, 2017. Privacy Note: The Department’s potential costs or increase potential
Kimberly M. Richey, policy for comments received from benefits while preserving the effective
members of the public is to make these and efficient administration of the
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services. submissions available for public Department’s programs and activities.
viewing in their entirety on the Federal During and after the comment period,
[FR Doc. 2017–16068 Filed 7–28–17; 8:45 am]
eRulemaking Portal at you may inspect all public comments
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, about these regulations by accessing
commenters should be careful to Regulations.gov. You may also inspect
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION include in their comments only the comments in person in Room
information that they wish to make 6W245, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
34 CFR Parts 75 and 77 publicly available. Washington, DC, between the hours of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern time,
[Docket ID ED–2017–OII–0032]
Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Monday through Friday of each week
RIN 1855–AA13 Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., except Federal holidays. If you want to
Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202– schedule time to inspect comments,
Definitions and Selection Criteria That 5900. Telephone: (202) 205–5231 or by please contact the person listed under
Apply to Direct Grant Programs email: kelly.terpak@ed.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
AGENCY:Department of Education. If you use a telecommunications Assistance to Individuals with
device for the deaf (TDD) or text Disabilities in Reviewing the
Final rule with request for
ACTION:
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Rulemaking Record: On request, we will
comments.
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– provide an appropriate accommodation
SUMMARY: The Secretary is issuing this 8339. or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
rule in order to better align the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As noted disability who needs assistance to
regulations with the definition of above, these regulations are effective on review the comments or other
‘‘evidence-based’’ in the statutory July 31, 2017. However, for grant award documents in the public rulemaking
authority. These changes mean that all competitions announced by the record for these regulations. If you want
competitive grant programs in the Department in the Federal Register to schedule an appointment for this type
Department can continue to use the prior to the effective date of these of aid, please contact the person listed
same provisions for evidence-based regulations, unless the notice specifies under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
grant-making. CONTACT.
otherwise, the provisions of 34 CFR
DATES: Effective date: These regulations parts 75 and 77 revised or removed Final Regulatory Changes
are effective July 31, 2017. The through this notice of final regulations
incorporation by reference of certain I. Selection Criteria
continue to apply to competitions and
publications listed in these regulations grants awarded under those notices Background: The regulations in
is approved by the Director of the inviting applications. subpart D of 34 CFR part 75 set forth the
Federal Register as of July 31, 2017. general requirements that govern the
sradovich on DSKBCFCHB2PROD with RULES
Comment due date: We will accept Invitation To Comment Department’s selection of grantees for
comments on or before August 30, 2017. These regulations do not establish direct grant awards. For those direct
We will consider the comments substantive policy changes, but instead grant programs that make discretionary
received and may conduct additional make technical changes to existing grant awards, the Secretary uses
rulemaking based on the comments. regulations. Since these regulations selection criteria to evaluate
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments make only technical changes, a applications submitted under those
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal comment period is not required. programs. The regulations establish a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Jul 28, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_35590/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 145 / Monday, July 31, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 35451
Version 3.0, March 2014, IBR approved ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
for § 77.1. AGENCY Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by
(2) What Works Clearinghouse email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov.
Procedures and Standards Handbook, 40 CFR Part 52 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Version 2.1, September 2011, IBR [EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0783; FRL–9965–45– I. Background
approved for § 77.1. Region 3]
[FR Doc. 2017–15989 Filed 7–27–17; 4:15 pm]
Regional haze is impairment of visual
Approval and Promulgation of Air range or colorization caused by air
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Quality Implementation Plans; pollution, principally by fine particulate
Maryland; Regional Haze Best matter (PM2.5), produced by numerous
Available Retrofit Technology Measure sources and activities, located across a
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS for Verso Luke Paper Mill broad regional area. The sources
AFFAIRS include, but are not limited to, major
AGENCY: Environmental Protection and minor stationary sources, mobile
38 CFR Part 17 Agency (EPA). sources, and area sources including
ACTION: Final rule. non-anthropogenic sources. These
RIN 2900–AP06
sources and activities may emit PM2.5
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection (e.g. sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
Ensuring a Safe Environment for Agency (EPA) is approving a state elemental carbon, and soil dust), and
Community Residential Care implementation plan (SIP) revision their precursors (e.g. SO2, NOX, and in
Residents; Correction submitted by the State of Maryland. some cases, ammonia and volatile
This revision pertains to a best available organic compounds). PM2.5 can also
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. retrofit technology (BART) alternative cause serious health effects and
measure for the Verso Luke Paper Mill mortality in humans, and contributes to
ACTION: Final rule; correction. (the Mill) submitted by the State of environmental effects such as acid
Maryland. Maryland requests new deposition and eutrophication.
SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans
emissions limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2) In the CAA Amendments of 1977,
Affairs is correcting a final rule that
added to its medical regulations new and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for power Congress established a program to
standards that must be met by a boiler 24 at the Mill and a SO2 cap on protect and improve visibility in the
Community Residential Care facility tons emitted per year for power boiler Nation’s national parks and wilderness
seeking approval by VA that was 25, while also requesting removal of the areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress
published in the Federal Register on specific BART emission limits for SO2 amended the visibility provisions in the
July 25, 2017. and NOX from power boiler 25. The CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the
alternative BART measure will provide problem of regional haze. See CAA
DATES: The correction is effective July greater reasonable progress for SO2 and section 169B. EPA promulgated regional
31, 2017. NOX for regional haze by resulting in haze regulations (RHR) in 1999 to
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. additional emission reductions of 2,055 implement sections 169A and 169B of
Richard Allman, Chief Consultant, tons per year (tpy) of SO2 and an the CAA. These regulations require
Geriatrics and Extended Care Services additional 804 tpy of NOX than would states to develop and implement plans
(10P4G), Veterans Health occur through the previously approved to ensure reasonable progress towards
Administration, Department of Veterans BART measure for power boiler 25, a improving visibility in mandatory Class
Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., BART subject source. No comments I Federal areas.1 See 64 FR 35714 (July
Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–6750. were received in response to EPA’s 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6,
(This is not a toll-free number.) proposed rulemaking notice published 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13,
on May 30, 2017. This action is being 2006).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VA is taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The RHR requires each state’s regional
correcting its final rule that added to its
DATES: This final rule is effective on haze implementation plan to contain
medical regulations new standards that
August 30, 2017. emission limitations representing best
must be met by a Community
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a available retrofit technology (BART) and
Residential Care facility seeking
docket for this action under Docket ID schedules for compliance with BART
approval by VA.
In FR Doc. 17–15519 appearing on Number EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0783. All for each source subject to BART, unless
documents in the docket are listed on the state demonstrates that an emissions
page 34408 in the Federal Register of trading program or other alternative
Tuesday, July 25, 2017, the following the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some measure will achieve greater reasonable
corrections are made: progress toward natural visibility
information is not publicly available,
§ 17.63 [Corrected] e.g., confidential business information conditions. The requirements for
(CBI) or other information whose alternative measures are established at
■ On page 34415, in the third column, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
disclosure is restricted by statute.
amend § 17.63(j)(4)(i)(K) by removing In addition to demonstrating greater
Certain other material, such as
the comma immediately following the reasonable progress towards improving
copyrighted material, is not placed on
word ‘‘distribute’’.
the Internet and will be publicly
sradovich on DSKBCFCHB2PROD with RULES
1 While Maryland has no Class I areas within its
Approved: available only in hard copy form. borders, there are several Class I areas nearby
Janet J. Coleman, Publicly available docket materials are including Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and Otter
Chief, Office of Regulation Policy & available through http:// Creek Wilderness Area in West Virginia; Brigantine
Management, Office of the Secretary, www.regulations.gov, or please contact Wilderness in New Jersey; Great Smoky Mountains
Department of Veterans Affairs. the person identified in the FOR FURTHER National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee;
James River Face and Shenandoah National Park in
[FR Doc. 2017–16034 Filed 7–28–17; 8:45 am] INFORMATION CONTACT section for Virginia; Linville Gorge in North Carolina; and
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P additional availability information. Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Jul 28, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_35590/page/7.svg)
Document Created: 2017-07-29 00:22:00
Document Modified: 2017-07-29 00:22:00
| 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 rule with request for comments. | |
| Dates | Effective date: These regulations are effective July 31, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 31, 2017. | |
| Contact | Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202- 5900. Telephone: (202) 205-5231 or by email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 35445 | |
| RIN Number | 1855-AA13 | |
| CFR Citation | 34
CFR
75 34 CFR 77 | |
| CFR Associated | Accounting; Copyright; Education; Grant Programs-Education; Inventions and Patents; Private Schools; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Youth Organizations and Incorporation by Reference |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR