Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10605 

Approved: February 6, 2007. 

Gregg A. Cervi, 

Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy Deputy 
Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty 
and Maritime Law). 

[FR Doc. E7–4254 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD05–07–018] 

RIN 1625–AA–09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 
Susquehanna River, at Havre de Grace, 
MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 
ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 
from regulations. 


SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast 
Guard District, has approved a 
temporary deviation from the 
regulations governing the operation of 
the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation (AMTRAK) Bridge, at mile 
1.0, across Susquehanna River at Havre 
de Grace, Maryland. This deviation 
allows the drawbridge to remain closed-
to-navigation beginning at 6 p.m. on 
March 30, 2007, until and including 6 

p.m. on June 8, 2007, to facilitate 
structural repairs. 
DATES: This deviation is effective from 
6 p.m. on March 30, 2007, until 6 p.m. 
on June 8, 2007. 


ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this 
document are available for inspection or 
copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth 
Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 
1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, 
Portsmouth, VA 23704–5004 between 8 

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is (757) 398–6222. 
Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard 
District maintains the public docket for 
this temporary deviation. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

H. Brazier, Bridge Management 
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at 
(757) 398–6422. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 
AMTRAK Bridge, a swing-type 
drawbridge, has a vertical clearance in 
the closed position to vessels of 52 feet, 
above mean high water. 
AMTRAK, the bridge owner, has 
requested a temporary deviation from 
the current operating regulation set out 
in 33 CFR 117.575 and to close the 

drawbridge to navigation to perform 
needed structural repairs. 

The repairs will include the renewal 
of 3,184 bridge timbers as well as the 
installation of new rail and expansion 
joints. To facilitate this work, the 
AMTRAK Bridge will be maintained in 
the closed-to-navigation position 
beginning at 6 p.m. on March 30, 2007, 
until and including 6 p.m. on June 8, 
2007. 

The Coast Guard has informed the 
known users of the waterway of the 
closure periods for the bridge so that 
these vessels can arrange their transits 
to minimize any impact caused by the 
temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 
the drawbridge must return to its regular 
operating schedule immediately at the 
end of the designated time period. 

This deviation from the operating 
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35. 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., 

Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth 
Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E7–4215 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
34 CFR Part 280 
Magnet Schools Assistance Program 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 
Improvement, Department of Education. 
ACTION: Final regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the 
regulations governing the Magnet 
Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) in 
34 CFR part 280. These amendments 
allow the MSAP to use an approach 
similar to that in § 75.200 for 
establishing selection criteria in grant 
competitions. Under this approach the 
MSAP has the flexibility to use selection 
criteria from its program regulations, 
from the menu of general selection 
criteria in the Education Department 
General Administrative Regulations 
(EDGAR) in § 75.210, based on statutory 
provisions in accordance with § 75.209, 
or from any combination of these. 

DATES: These regulations are effective 
April 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven L. Brockhouse, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 
SW., room 4W229, Washington, DC 
20202–5970. Telephone: (202) 260–2476 
or via Internet: 
steve.brockhouse@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1– 
800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 
obtain this document in an alternative 
format (e.g., Braille, large print, 
audiotape, or computer diskette) on 
request to the contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 
22, 2006 the Secretary published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
for these amendments in the Federal 
Register (71 FR 48866). 

In the preamble to the NPRM, the 
Secretary discussed on pages 48866 and 
48867 the major changes proposed in 
that document to provide the MSAP 
with the flexibility to use different types 
of selection criteria when evaluating 
grant applications in a specific grant 
competition. These included the 
following: 

• Amending § 280.30 to give the 
Secretary the flexibility to use selection 
criteria from § 280.31, from the 
approved menu of general selection 
criteria in § 75.210 or from selection 
criteria based on statutory provisions 
governing the MSAP, established in 
accordance with § 75.209. 
• Amending § 280.31 to remove the 
mandatory point values from the 
selection criteria in this section of the 
MSAP regulations. 
There are no differences between the 
NPRM and these final regulations. 

Analysis of Comments 

In response to the Secretary’s 
invitation in the NPRM, nine parties 
submitted comments on the proposed 
regulations. An analysis of the 
comments follows. 

We discuss substantive issues under 
the sections of the regulations to which 
they pertain. Generally, we do not 
address technical and other minor 
changes—and suggested changes the 
law does not authorize the Secretary to 
make. 

Section 280.30 How Does the Secretary 
Evaluate an Application? 

Comment: Two commenters 
expressed the opinion that the current 
selection criteria work effectively to 
address the MSAP’s statutory purpose 
and requirements, and consequently 
that a change in approach to permit the 
use of other selection criteria is not 
needed at this time. 

Discussion: The Department proposed 
these changes because we have been 
constrained in past MSAP competitions 
to using only the program selection 
criteria in § 280.31, whether or not their 
use continues to work well in the 


10606 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

selection of new projects that are likely 
to be effective in achieving results. This 
approach limited our ability to tailor the 
selection criteria in a manner that 
allowed us to take into consideration 
current program needs, new research 
findings relating to magnet schools, or 
other appropriate information in order 
to facilitate the selection of applications 
that show the greatest promise of 
meeting the program’s statutory 
purposes. 

The amended regulations provide the 
flexibility to make adjustments to the 
selection criteria that are used for a 
particular competition. Implementation 
of this change does not mean that 
existing selection criteria that continue 
to work effectively in the selection of 
high-quality applications for awards 
will be disregarded or abandoned. In 
fact, it is unlikely that the use of this 
approach will result in major changes 
from one grant competition to the next. 
Nonetheless, the Department does 
believe that the flexibility gained in 
using this approach will enable us to 
more effectively tailor selection criteria 
to ensure projects best address the 
purpose and requirements of the MSAP 
statute. 

Change: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 
expressed concerns about the effects of 
different criteria, especially general 
criteria from EDGAR, and indicated that 
they believed that the use of such 
criteria would be detrimental to the 
quality of applications. 

Discussion: Any criterion or factor 
from the approved menu in § 75.210 
must be considered in the context of the 
MSAP and in conjunction with 
applicable statutory provisions and 
program regulations. As a result, we do 
not believe that the use of selection 
criteria or factors from § 75.210 will 
negatively affect program quality. 

Change: None. 

Comment: Two commenters criticized 
the approach in § 280.30 because they 
believed that it would provide too much 
flexibility to manipulate the MSAP’s 
statutory purpose or disregard 
desegregation-related factors. 

Discussion: Fears that this approach 
will allow the Secretary to supersede 
statutory provisions or program 
requirements are misplaced. The 
Secretary is bound by statutory 
provisions. In evaluating applications, 
the Department must adhere to selection 
criteria or other provisions related to the 
evaluation of applications that are 
required by statute and the regulations. 
In addition, the Department intends to 
use this approach to establish selection 
criteria in conjunction with the statute 

and program requirements in the MSAP 

regulations, not instead of them. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter criticized 
the approach in § 280.30 because the 
public would not be afforded the 
opportunity to comment formally on the 
Department’s choice of selection criteria 
for a particular competition and another 
commenter indicated that rulemaking 
for each proposed change or set of 
changes would be preferable. 

Discussion: The Magnet Schools 
Assistance Program (MSAP) Application 
for Grants is approved under OMB 
number 1855–0011. This information 
collection follows the streamlined grant 
application clearance procedures 
approved under OMB numbers 1890– 
0001 and 1890–0006. For special 
information collection processes such as 
the use of generic grant applications 
using the EDGAR selection criteria, 
public comment on the information 
collection is generally solicited at three 
year intervals. The current approval for 
the MSAP application package expires 
April 30, 2007 and the Department will 
publish a Federal Register notice 
shortly to solicit comments on that 
application package (1855–0011). 

The Department welcomes comments 
and suggestions on selection criteria, 
and the application process generally, 
apart from formal opportunities to 
comment. Potential applicants, grantees, 
program beneficiaries, and others are 
encouraged to advise the Department 
about their experience with the 
selection criteria, and to provide 
recommendations for criteria for future 
competitions at any time, for the 
Department’s use in designing selection 
criteria. 

Moreover, as discussed earlier in 
these comments, the Department 
believes that this approach provides 
flexibility to make adjustments to the 
selection criteria that are used for a 
particular competition and that the 
flexibility gained in using this approach 
will enable us to more effectively tailor 
selection criteria to help ensure the 
selection of projects that best address 
the purpose and requirements of the 
MSAP statute. 

Change: None. 

Comment: Other commenters 
expressed varying views regarding the 
approach in § 280.30 that would give 
the Secretary the flexibility to use 
selection criteria from the approved 
menu of general selection criteria in 
§ 75.210 or from selection criteria based 
on statutory provisions governing the 
MSAP, in accordance with § 75.209. 
One commenter indicated that the 
additional flexibility would be 
beneficial. Three others expressed 

reservations about this approach, but 
only in the context of whether there 
would be sufficient time available to 
adequately address any new selection 
criteria. One other commenter also 
expressed concern that the change 
would have a detrimental effect on 
planning prior to the announcement of 
selection criteria. 

Discussion: The Secretary does not 
believe that the new approach will 
prevent potential applicants from 
beginning to prepare applications in 
advance of an application 
announcement. Applicants may begin 
work on the basis of statutory purposes 
and requirements. Additionally, it is 
unlikely that there will be substantial 
changes in the selection criteria used in 
evaluating applications from one 
competition to the next in the absence 
of statutory changes that might 
otherwise require more significant 
revisions. Further, under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, an agency must 
obtain OMB approval to require 
responses to an information collection 
in less than 30 days. As a result, under 
most circumstances respondents will 
have a minimum of 30 days to prepare 
applications and in most instances an 
even longer period based on past 
practices. Over the previous four MSAP 
competitions, applicants have actually 
had a minimum of 42 days from the date 
of publication of the application notice 
to the application due date in which to 
prepare applications, and an average of 
more than 60 days in which to prepare 
applications over the course of these 
four competitions. 

Change: None. 

Section 280.31 What Selection Criteria 
Does the Secretary Use? 

Comment: Two commenters 
addressed the amendment to § 280.31 
that removes the mandatory point 
values from the selection criteria in this 
section of the MSAP regulations. One 
commenter expressed the opinion that 
removing point values was not a good 
idea, however the commenter offered no 
explanation of this position. The other 
commenter sought clarification 
regarding whether a different set of 
point values for selection criteria would 
be used. 

Discussion: Removing the currently 
specified point values from the selection 
criteria in § 280.31 does not mean that 
point values will not be used. As set 
forth in § 280.30(e), there will continue 
to be 100 points awarded for the 
selection criteria. Removing the 
mandatory point values merely provides 
the flexibility to assign specific point 
values based on the selection criteria 
actually used in a particular 


Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10607 

competition, consistent with the 
Department’s approach for other 
discretionary grant programs that use 
selection criteria from § 75.210 and 
selection criteria based on the statute, as 
set forth in § 75.209, as well as selection 
criteria from program regulations. 

Change: None. 

Executive Order 12866 

We have reviewed these final 
regulations in accordance with 
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms 
of the order we have assessed the 
potential costs and benefits of this 
regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 
the final regulations are those resulting 
from statutory requirements and those 
we have determined to be necessary for 
administering this program effectively 
and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 
benefits—both quantitative and 
qualitative—of these final regulations, 
we have determined that the benefits of 
the regulations justify the costs. 

We have also determined that this 
regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal 
governments in the exercise of their 
governmental functions. 

Summary of Potential Costs and 
Benefits 

We summarized the potential costs 
and benefits of these final regulations in 
the preamble to the NPRM (71 FR 
48867). 

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 the collection of 
information in these final regulations at 
the end of the affected section of the 
regulations. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to the 
requirements of Executive Order 12372 
and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 
The objective of the Executive order is 
to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened 
federalism by relying on processes 
developed by State and local 
governments for coordination and 
review of proposed Federal financial 
assistance. 

In accordance with the order, we 
intend this document to provide early 
notification of the Department’s specific 
plans and actions for this program. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 
as all other Department of Education 
documents published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable 
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 
at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 
news/fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 
Acrobat Reader, which is available free 
at this site. If you have questions about 
using PDF, call the U.S. Government 
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 
888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 
DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

You may also view this document in 
text or PDF at the following site: 
http://www.ed.gov/programs/magnet/ 
applicant.html. 

Note: 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 on GPO 
Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 
index.html. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
Number 84.165A Magnet Schools Assistance 
Program.) 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 280 

Civil rights, Desegregation, Education, 
Elementary and secondary education, 
Grant programs—education, Magnet 
schools, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements. 

Dated: March 6, 2007. 

Morgan S. Brown, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 
Improvement. 

¦ 
For the reasons discussed in the 
preamble, the Assistant Deputy 
Secretary for Innovation and 
Improvement amends part 280 of title 
34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows: 
PART 280—MAGNET SCHOOLS 
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

¦ 
1. The authority citation for part 280 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7231–7231j, unless 
otherwise noted. 

¦ 
2. Section 280.30 is revised to read as 
follows: 
§ 280.30 How does the Secretary evaluate 
an application? 

(a) The Secretary evaluates an 
application under the procedures in 34 
CFR part 75 and this part. 
(b) To evaluate an application for a 
new grant the Secretary may use— 
(1) Selection criteria established 
under 34 CFR 75.209; 
(2) Selection criteria in § 280.31; 
(3) Selection criteria established 
under 34 CFR 75.210; or 
(4) Any combination of criteria from 
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of 
this section. 
(c) The Secretary indicates in the 
application notice published in the 
Federal Register the specific criteria 
that the Secretary will use and how 
points for the selection criteria will be 
distributed. 
(d) The Secretary evaluates an 
application submitted under this part on 
the basis of criteria described in 
paragraph (c) of this section and the 
priority factors in § 280.32. 
(e) The Secretary awards up to 100 
points for the extent to which an 
application meets the criteria described 
in paragraph (c) of this section. 
(f) The Secretary then awards up to 30 
additional points based upon the 
priority factors in § 280.32. 
(Approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget under control number 1855–0011) 
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7231–7231j) 

§ 280.31 [Amended] 

¦ 
3. Section 280.31 is amended: 
¦ 
A. In the introductory text, by 
removing the word ‘‘uses’’ and adding, 
in its place, the words ‘‘may use’’. 
¦ 
B. In paragraph (a) introductory text, 
by removing the parenthetical ‘‘(25 
points)’’. 
¦ 
C. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 
by removing the parenthetical ‘‘(10 
points)’’. 
¦ 
D. In paragraph (c) introductory text, 
by removing the parenthetical ‘‘(35 
points)’’. 
¦ 
E. In paragraph (d) introductory text, 
by removing the parenthetical ‘‘(5 
points)’’. 
¦ 
F. In paragraph (e) introductory text, 
by removing the parenthetical ‘‘(15 
points)’’. 
¦ 
G. In paragraph (f) introductory text, 
by removing the parenthetical ‘‘(10 
points)’’. 
[FR Doc. E7–4270 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P