Final Priority-Promise Zones rule (2014)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrative State Banner - Circle Graphic - V2.jpg
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
• Nondelegation
• Judicial deference
• Executive control
• Procedural rights
• Agency dynamics
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Final Priority-Promise Zones rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education effective April 28, 2014, that established a priority regarding the allocation of federal financial assistance to department programs aimed at supporting Promise Zones, which are communities partnered with the federal government to increase economic, educational, and public safety opportunities.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Final Priority-Promise Zones
  • Code of Federal Regulations: 34 CFR chapter undefined
  • Agency: Department of Education
  • Action: Final priority
  • 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
    • Education policy by state
    • State public education information
    • State higher education portal
    • School choice information by state
    • Charter schools in the United States
    • Trends in curriculum development
    • Curriculum standards in public universities
    • K-12 education content standards in the states

    The Department of Education issued a proposed priority on October 25, 2013, in an effort to prioritize the allocation of federal funding and grants to Promise Zones. President Barack Obama (D) announced an initiative in 2013 to designate certain high-poverty communities as Promise Zones in an effort to partner with them and offer opportunities for economic activity, educational improvement, and public safety. The proposed priority issued in the Federal Register outlines the following goals of Promise Zones:[2]

    " Promise Zones will align the work of multiple Federal programs in high-poverty urban, rural, and tribal communities that have both substantial needs and a strong, evidence-based plan to address them. The five primary goals of Promise Zones are creating jobs, increasing economic activity, improving educational opportunities, reducing violent crime, and leveraging private investment.[2][3] ”


    The priority aimed to focus federal financial assistance to the 22 designated Promise Zones in an effort to "ensure that all children have the opportunity to earn a decent living when they reach adulthood," according to the proposed rule.[2][4]

    Summary of the rule

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

    " The Secretary of Education (Secretary) announces a priority that the Department of Education (Department) may use for any appropriate discretionary grant program in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and future years. Through this action, we intend to focus Federal financial assistance on expanding the number of Department programs and projects that support activities in designated Promise Zones.


    This action will permit all offices in the Department to use this priority, as appropriate, in any discretionary grant competition.[1][3]

    		”

    Summary of provisions

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

    " To ensure that the Department's discretionary grant programs can provide, where appropriate, the increased access to additional investments for Promise Zones, the Secretary establishes a priority for projects that will serve and coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone.[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 Federal Register, "Final Priority-Promise Zones," March 27, 2014
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Federal Register, "Proposed Priority-Promise Zones," October 25, 2013
    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.
    4. ↑ HUD Exchange, "Promise Zones Overview," accessed May 3, 2023
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    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
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    Über uns
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Ethan Sorell • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Final_Priority-Promise_Zones_rule_(2014)&oldid=9169541"