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

Direct Grant Programs rule (2008)

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 rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education effective January 7, 2008, that amended department regulations concerning indirect cost rates for department grants. The regulations were amended to align the department's procedures with other federal agencies.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Direct Grant Programs
  • Agency: Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Department of Education
  • Type of significant rule: Other 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

    The secretary of the Department of Education proposed amendments to 34 CFR 75 to adjust the process for providing and determining temporary indirect cost rates for department grants. The proposal was made to align the department's procedure with other federal agencies and provide clarity on the process for determining the cost base:

    “ These regulations are needed to make the Department's practice consistent with the practice of other Federal agencies and reduce the number of improper payments that result when applicants budget indirect costs that are greater than the actual indirect costs the applicant can expect to recover under Federal cost principles. Currently, new grantees of the Department are not recovering any indirect costs until they negotiate an indirect cost rate with their cognizant agencies. These proposed regulations would help a new grantee by permitting it to recover indirect costs at the temporary rate until it negotiate a rate with its cognizant agency or for ninety days if it does not submit its indirect cost rate proposal to its cognizant agency within the ninety-day period.[3] ”


    The amendments altered the process for establishing temporary rates for department grants and recovery of indirect costs by grantees.[2][1]

    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 Department's regulations governing the determination and recovery of indirect costs by grantees. These amendments address procedural aspects related to the establishment of temporary indirect cost rates, specify the temporary rate that will apply to grants generally, and clarify how indirect costs are determined for a group of applicants that apply for a single training grant.[1][3] ”

    Summary of provisions

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

    “ These final regulations provide a temporary indirect cost rate to a grantee that does not have a federally recognized indirect cost rate on the date the Department awards its first grant. The temporary rate for such a grantee will be 10 percent of the direct salaries and wages of the project. These regulations permit the use of a temporary indirect cost rate under the grant award for the first 90 days after the date the Department issues the Grant Award Notification. A grantee may continue to charge indirect costs at the temporary rate after the first 90 days if the grantee submits a formal indirect cost proposal to its cognizant agency within those 90 days. If, after the 90-day period, a grantee has not submitted an indirect cost proposal to its cognizant agency, it must stop using the temporary rate. After that period, the grantee will not be allowed to charge any indirect costs to its grant until it obtains a federally recognized indirect cost rate from its cognizant agency.


    These regulations make the Department's practice consistent with the practice of other Federal agencies and reduce the number of improper payments that result when applicants budget indirect costs that are greater than the actual indirect costs the applicant can expect to recover under Federal cost principles. As explained in the NPRM, under the Department's prior practice, new grantees of the Department were not recovering any indirect costs until they negotiated an indirect cost rate with their cognizant agencies. These regulations now enable a new grantee to recover indirect costs at the temporary rate until it negotiates a rate with its cognizant agency or for 90 days if it does not submit its indirect cost rate proposal to its cognizant agency within the 90-day period.

    The regulations also clarify how the modified total direct cost base is determined when a grant is subject to the eight percent indirect cost rate limitation for training grants and specify how to treat sub-awards (contracts) if the indirect cost rate is applied to a grant made to a group under the procedures in §§ 75.127 through 75.129.[3]

    		”

    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," December 7, 2007
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Federal Register, "Direct Grant Programs," May 24, 2007
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 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_rule_(2008)&oldid=9169513"