Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Direct Grant Programs and Definitions That Apply to Department Regulations rule (2013)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Direct Grant Programs and Definitions That Apply to Department Regulations rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education effective September 12, 2013, that amended department regulations concerning performance evaluations for discretionary grant program projects.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Direct Grant Programs and Definitions That Apply to Department Regulations
  • Code of Federal Regulations: 34 CFR Parts 75 and 77
  • Agency: Department of Education
  • Type of significant rule: Economically significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    Education Policy
    Education Icon 200x200.png
    Education policy topics
    • Overview of trends in K-12 curricula development
    • Impact of school choice on rural school districts
    • Local school board authority across the 50 states
    • State policies on cellphone use in K-12 public schools
    • School choice in the United States
    • School choice glossary

    Other policy areas
    Click here for coverage of other policy areas on Ballotpedia

    President Barack Obama (D) issued Executive Order 13563 on January 21, 2011, which directed executive agencies to complete a retrospective analysis of department rules and "to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned," according to the executive order. In response to the order, the Department of Education issued on August 22, 2011, a "Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Regulations."[2][3]

    The department completed a review of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) as part of the initiative for retrospective analysis of rules. As part of the review of EDGAR, the department "identified key provisions that required substantive changes to improve transparency and the efficiency and effectiveness of our grant-making functions," according to the proposed rule. The Department of Education proposed amendments to EDGAR to improve the effectiveness of the grant-making decision process. The amendments also aimed to align the grant-making process with policy objectives outlined by the department.[1][2]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ The Secretary amends the regulations in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) to: improve the Department's ability to evaluate the performance of discretionary grant programs and grantee projects; support, where appropriate, projects supported by evidence of effectiveness; review grant applications using selection factors that promote the Secretary's policy objectives related to project evaluation, sustainability, productivity, and strategy to scale; and reduce burden on grantees in selecting implementation sites, implementation partners, or evaluation service providers for their proposed projects. These amendments will allow the Department to be more effective and efficient when selecting grantees in discretionary grant competitions, provide higher-quality data to the Congress and the public, and better focus applicants on the goals and objectives of the programs to which they apply for grants.[1][4] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the final rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “ These rules:
    1. Allow the Secretary, in the application notice for a grant competition, to establish performance measurement requirements for grantees (New § 75.110);
    2. Revise requirements for project evaluations submitted to the Department by grantees and for continuation of a multi-year project to incorporate performance measurement requirements for grantees (Amended §§ 75.253 and 75.590);
    3. Authorize grantees to procure implementation sites without regard to the procurement procedures in parts 74 and 80 and use small purchase procedures to procure evaluation service providers and providers of services that are essential to the success of a proposed grant, provided the site or service provider is identified in the grant application (New § 75.135);
    4. Allow the Secretary, through an announcement in the Federal Register, to authorize grantees under particular programs to award subgrants to directly carry out programmatic activities. The possible subgrantees and the program activities they would carry out must be identified and described in the grantees' applications or selected through a competitive process set out in subgranting procedures established by the grantee (New § 75.708);
    5. Add one new selection criterion and amend two existing selection criteria that the Department may use to evaluate applications. The new criterion is used to assess the extent to which a proposed project could be brought to scale. The amendments to the general selection criteria also include the addition of five new factors to § 75.210(h) (Quality of the Project Evaluation) that could be used to assess how well a proposed project evaluation would produce evidence about the project's effectiveness. We also revised one factor and added six new factors to § 75.210(c) (Quality of the Project Design) (Amended §§ 75.209 and 75.210);
    6. Authorize program offices to consider the effectiveness of proposed projects under a new priority that could be used as an absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priority (New § 75.266); and
    7. Allow the Secretary to fund data collection periods after the end of the substantive work of a project so that project outcomes could be assessed using data from the entire project period (Amended §§ 75.250 and 75.251).[4]
    		 ”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deemed this rule economically significant pursuant to Executive Order 12866. An agency rule can be deemed a significant rule if it has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. The term was defined by E.O. 12866, which was issued in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.[1]

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Federal Register, "Direct Grant Programs and Definitions That Apply to Department Regulations," August 13, 2013
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Federal Register, "Direct Grant Programs and Definitions That Apply to Department Regulations," December 14, 2012
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Federal Register, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review," January 21, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Direct_Grant_Programs_and_Definitions_That_Apply_to_Department_Regulations_rule_(2013)&oldid=9169512"