[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65734-65739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25765]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2019-OPEPD-0120]
Administrative Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education proposes to establish six
priorities for discretionary grant programs that would expand the
Department of Education's (the Department's) flexibility to give
priority to a broader range of applicants with varying experience in
administering Federal education funds (Proposed Priorities 1 and 2),
applicants proposing to serve rural communities (Proposed Priorities 3
and 4), applicants that demonstrate a rationale for their proposed
projects (Proposed Priority 5), or applicants proposing to collect data
after the grant's original project period (Proposed Priority 6).
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before December 30, 2019.
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 ``Help.''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priorities, address
them to Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue
SW, Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public 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.
Telephone: (202) 205-5231. Email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation to Comment: We invite you to
submit comments regarding the proposed priorities. To ensure that your
comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final
priorities, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed
priority that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result
from the proposed priorities. Please let us know of any further ways we
could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of our programs.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about the proposed priorities in 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room
4W312, 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.
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 the proposed priorities. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
Proposed Priorities
This document contains six proposed priorities. The Department
seeks to expand the range of applicants benefiting from Federal
funding, in part to promote greater innovation, and we believe the
proposed priorities for new potential grantees and applicants proposing
to serve rural communities would help the Department meet this goal. To
operationalize these priorities, the Department may choose to use
multiple absolute priorities to create separate funding slates for
applicants that are new potential grantees compared with those that are
not or for applicants that propose to serve rural communities compared
with applicants that do not. Accordingly, the Department seeks to
establish priorities that define the inverse populations and would only
be used in conjunction with the priorities for new potential grantees
or rural applicants. The Department also recognizes the importance of
developing evidence for effective education interventions and
strategies, particularly in areas where the existing evidence base is
thin or non-existent. We propose a priority for applicants that
demonstrate a rationale for their projects and a priority for
applicants proposing to collect data after the grant project period.
Proposed Priority 1--Applications From New Potential Grantees
Background: The Department believes that our programs will best
serve students across the country if a broader range of entities can
compete on a level playing field for grants, including entities that
have not typically participated in our grant programs. Under 34 CFR
75.225, the Department has been able to prioritize applicants that have
never received funding under a particular program and have not received
any Federal grants in the past five years. However, the definition for
``novice applicant'' in 34 CFR 75.225 is too restrictive for most of
the Department's grant programs and frequently does not benefit many
applicants. Some programs have created
[[Page 65735]]
program-specific definitions that are tailored to their individual
contexts to address this issue, highlighting the fact that 34 CFR
75.225 does not work in all contexts. We believe that this proposed
priority defines ``new potential grantee'' more flexibly than 34 CFR
75.225 currently defines ``novice applicant,'' and more discretionary
grant programs will be able to use it. The proposed priority would more
effectively promote the Department's interest in awarding grants to a
wider variety of applicants while also streamlining our work, because
discretionary grant programs would no longer need to create their own
program-specific priorities in order to encourage new entities to apply
for grants. A grant program would be able to choose any of the elements
identified that most appropriately defines a new potential grantee for
the given program, specifying in the notice inviting applications (NIA)
for that program which portions of this priority apply. We believe that
establishing this priority is the most efficient way to ensure a level
playing field for new potential grantees and to provide needed
flexibility for programs in encouraging new potential grantees to
apply. The Department would not use this proposed priority for any
grant programs that, by statute, prohibit its use.
Proposed Priority:
(a) Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate one or more
of the following:
(i) The applicant has never received a grant, including through
membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR
75.127-75.129, under the program from which it seeks funds.
(ii) The applicant does not, as of the deadline date for submission
of applications, have an active grant, including through membership in
a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129,
under the program from which it seeks funds.
(iii) The applicant has not had an active discretionary grant under
the program from which it seeks funds, including through membership in
a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129,
in the number of years stated in the notice inviting applications
before the deadline date for submission of applications under the
program.
(iv) The applicant has not had an active discretionary grant from
the Department, including through membership in a group application
submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, in the number of
years stated in the notice inviting applications before the deadline
date for submission of applications under the program from which it
seeks funds.
(v) The applicant has not had an active contract from the
Department in the number of years stated in the notice inviting
applications before the deadline date for submission of applications
under the program for which it seeks funds.
(b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active
until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period,
including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or
contractor's authority to obligate funds.
Proposed Priority 2--Applications From Grantees That Are Not New
Potential Grantees
Background: As described above, the Department believes that our
programs will best serve students across the country if our grants
benefit a broad range of entities. One way of operationalizing this
goal is to create multiple funding slates using multiple absolute
priorities. Accordingly, the Department proposes to establish a
priority that would serve as the inverse of Proposed Priority 1. Using
both priorities, a program could include all eligible entities but
allow for different funding slates, which provides the flexibility for
the Department to evaluate applicants on each separate slate against
only the other applicants on that slate. A grant program would use the
elements that most appropriately define a grantee that is not a new
potential grantee for a given program, specifying in the NIA for that
program which portions of this priority apply. We believe that
establishing this priority is the most efficient way to provide needed
flexibility for programs in encouraging applications from the broadest
possible range of eligible applicants. The Department would not use
this proposed priority for any grant programs that, by statute,
prohibit its use.
Proposed Priority:
(a) Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate one or more
of the following:
(i) The applicant has received a grant, including through
membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR
75.127-75.129, under the program from which it seeks funds.
(ii) The applicant has, as of the deadline date for submission of
applications, an active grant, including through membership in a group
application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, under
the program from which it seeks funds.
(iii) The applicant has had an active discretionary grant under the
program from which it seeks funds, including through membership in a
group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, in
the number of years stated in the notice inviting applications before
the deadline date for submission of applications under the program.
(iv) The applicant has had an active discretionary grant from the
Department, including through membership in a group application
submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, in the number of
years stated in the notice inviting applications before the deadline
date for submission of applications under the program from which it
seeks funds.
(v) The applicant has had an active contract from the Department in
the number of years stated in the notice inviting applications before
the deadline date for submission of applications under the program for
which it seeks funds.
(b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active
until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period,
including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or
contractor's authority to obligate funds.
(c) This priority can only be used in competitions where the
priority for Applications from New Potential Grantees is used.
Proposed Priority 3--Rural Applicants
Background:
Rural communities face unique challenges and have unique
opportunities. These factors are reflected in the statutory priority
accorded to applicants that serve rural communities in many Department
programs, but the Department believes that it is appropriate for it to
have the option to give priority to applicants that will serve rural
communities under any of its discretionary grant programs. In addition,
some rural districts receive very small allocations under the
Department's formula grant programs that may have limited impact. For
these reasons, the Department strongly believes that new authority to
specifically encourage applications that will provide services in rural
communities is essential to more equitable administration of Federal
education programs.
Proposed Priority:
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate one or more of
the following:
[[Page 65736]]
(a) The applicant proposes to serve a local educational agency
(LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA)
program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized
under Title V, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, as amended.
(b) The applicant proposes to serve a community that is served by
one or more LEAs--
(i) With a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
(ii) With a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
(c) The applicant proposes a project in which a majority of the
schools served--
(i) Have a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
(ii) Have a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
(d) The applicant is an institution of higher education (IHE) with
a rural campus setting, or the applicant proposes to serve a campus
with a rural setting. Rural settings include any of the following:
Town-Fringe, Town-Distant, Town-Remote, Rural Fringe, Rural-Distant,
Rural-Remote, as defined by the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) College Navigator search tool.
Note: To determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for SRSA or
RLIS, refer to the Department's website at https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html. Applicants are encouraged to retrieve locale
codes from the NCES School District search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/), where LEAs can be looked up individually to
retrieve locale codes, and Public School search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/), where individual schools can be looked
up to retrieve locale codes. Applicants are encouraged to retrieve
campus settings from the NCES College Navigator search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/) where IHEs can be looked up individually
to determine the campus setting.
Proposed Priority 4--Non-Rural Applicants
Background: As described above, the Department believes that our
programs will best serve students across the country if our grants
benefit a broad range of entities. One way of operationalizing this
goal is to create multiple funding slates using multiple absolute
priorities. Accordingly, the Department proposes to establish a
priority that would serve as the inverse of Proposed Priority 3. Using
both priorities, a program could include all eligible entities but
allow for different funding slates, which provides the flexibility for
the Department to evaluate applicants on each separate slate against
only the other applicants on that slate. A grant program would use the
elements that most appropriately define a grantee that is not a rural
applicant for a given program, specifying in the NIA for that program
which portions of this priority apply. We believe that establishing
this priority is the most efficient way to provide needed flexibility
for programs in encouraging applications from the broadest possible
range of eligible applicants. The Department would not use this
proposed priority for any grant programs that, by statute, prohibit its
use.
Proposed Priority:
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate one or more of
the following:
(a) The applicant does not propose to serve a local educational
agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement
(SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program
authorized under Title V, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended.
(b) The applicant does not propose to serve a community that is
served by one or more LEAs--
(i) With a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
(ii) With a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
(c) The applicant does not propose a project in which a majority of
the schools served--
(i) Have a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
(ii) Have a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
(d) The applicant is not an institution of higher education (IHE)
with a rural campus setting, or the applicant proposes to serve a
campus with a rural setting. Rural settings include any of the
following: Town-Fringe, Town-Distant, Town-Remote, Rural Fringe, Rural-
Distant, Rural-Remote, as defined by the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) College Navigator search tool.
(e) This priority can only be used in competitions where the
priority for Rural Applicants is used.
Note: To determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for SRSA or
RLIS, refer to the Department's website at https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html. Applicants are encouraged to retrieve locale
codes from the NCES School District search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/), where LEAs can be looked up individually to
retrieve locale codes, and Public School search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/), where individual schools can be looked
up to retrieve locale codes. Applicants are encouraged to retrieve
campus settings from the NCES College Navigator search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/) where IHEs can be looked up individually
to determine the campus setting.
Proposed Priority 5--Applications That Demonstrate a Rationale in the
Project's Logic Model
Background:
Consistent with 34 CFR 77.1, a project demonstrates a rationale if
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. Logic models describe
the need for a program, its inputs and outputs, and the intended
outcomes. Logic models are helpful tools for applicants to use when
establishing timelines and resource needs. They also are helpful to the
Department and reviewers in understanding the applicant's rationale for
how its proposed project will achieve the project outcomes. Finally,
the requirement that a key project component identified in the logic
model be informed by research and evaluation findings that suggest it
is likely to improve relevant outcomes establishes a standard of
evidence that should improve the overall quality of funded
applications. As such, the Department may choose to prioritize
applications that demonstrate a rationale through the use of a logic
model to support project planning and implementation. In addition, we
believe this proposed priority would allow us to focus Federal dollars
on evidence-based proposals, even for programs where the relevant
evidence base is relatively nascent.
Proposed Priority:
Under this priority, an applicant proposes a project that
demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
Proposed Priority 6--Data Collection
Background:
With the recent passage of the Foundations for Evidence-Based
Policymaking Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-435), along with Strategy 3:
Decision-Making and Accountability of the 2018 President's Management
Agenda (performance.gov/PMA), Congress and the President have signaled
an active interest in having the Federal government collect more
comprehensive performance data in order to support policy decisions
informed by a strong body of evidence. Accordingly, the Department is
particularly interested in collecting outcomes data from grantees after
the end of the project period of a grant, assuming availability of
funds. By requiring or encouraging applicants to
[[Page 65737]]
collect data, the Department hopes to further expand the evidence base
for existing grant programs and report more comprehensive outcomes data
to Congress and the public. To address the proposed priority, an
applicant would include in its application a budget for and a
description of its proposed post-project data collection efforts, which
would be funded by the Department under 34 CFR 75.250(b).
Proposed Priority: Under this priority, an applicant includes a
data collection period after the conclusion of the grant project
period, for a period of time to be specified in the notice inviting
applications, consistent with 34 CFR 75.250(b).
Types of Priorities: When inviting applications for a competition
using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in
the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Priorities: We will announce the final priorities in a notice
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities after
considering responses to the proposed priorities and other information
available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined 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 proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f)(4) 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,
and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two
deregulatory actions. For FY 2020, any new incremental costs associated
with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of
existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order
13771 does not apply to ``transfer rules'' that cause only income
transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those
regarding discretionary grant programs. Because the proposed priorities
would be used in connection with one or more discretionary grant
programs, Executive Order 13771 does not apply.
We have also reviewed these proposed regulations under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
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 issue these proposed priorities only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that
would maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs
and benefits, we believe that these proposed 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
We have reviewed the proposed priorities in accordance with
Executive Order 12866 and do not believe that these priorities would
generate a considerable increase in burden. We believe any additional
costs imposed by the proposed priorities would be negligible, primarily
because they would create new opportunities to prioritize applicants
that may have submitted applications regardless of these changes,
changes that do not impose additional burden. Moreover, we believe any
costs will be significantly outweighed by the
[[Page 65738]]
potential benefits of making funding opportunities increasingly
available to the widest possible field of applicants and the benefits
of expanding the research base. In addition, generally, participation
in a discretionary grant program is entirely voluntary; as a result,
these proposed priorities do not impose any particular burden except
when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for a grant.
Proposed priority 1 would give the Department the opportunity to
prioritize a ``new potential grantee'' with greater flexibility than is
currently available through existing methods of giving special
consideration to ``novice applicants.'' We believe that this proposed
priority could result in a number of changes in the behavior of both
Department staff and applicants. First, we believe that the additional
flexibility in the new definition would increase the number of
competitions in which we prioritize a ``new potential grantee.''
Second, we believe that it could result in additional applicants
submitting applications for competitions that include such a priority.
Finally, we believe that the proposed priority could shift at least
some of the Department's grants among eligible entities. However,
because this proposed priority, in conjunction with Proposed Priority
2, would neither expand nor restrict the universe of eligible entities
for any Department grant program, and since application submission and
participation in our discretionary grant programs is voluntary, we do
not think that it would be appropriate to characterize any increased
participation in our grant competitions as costs associated with this
priority.
Proposed Priority 2, as the inverse of Proposed Priority 1, would
similarly not create costs or benefits, but may have the result of
shifting at least some of the Department's grants among eligible
entities. Again, since application submission and participation in our
discretionary grant programs is voluntary, we do not think that it
would be appropriate to characterize any increased participation or
differences in which entities receive awards as costs associated with
this priority.
Similarly, Proposed Priority 3 would give the Department the
opportunity to prioritize rural applicants. We believe that this
proposed priority could result in changes in the behavior of both
Department staff and applicants similar to those described above with
respect to proposed priority 1. First, we believe that the availability
of a priority related to supporting rural communities will increase the
number of competitions in which we prioritize rural applicants, since a
program could use this priority without going through program-specific
rulemaking. Second, we believe that it may result in additional
applicants submitting applications for competitions that include such a
priority. Finally, we believe that the proposed priority could shift at
least some of the Department's grants among eligible entities. However,
because this proposed priority would neither expand nor restrict the
universe of eligible entities for any Department grant program, and
since application submission and participation in our discretionary
grant programs is voluntary, we do not think that it would be
appropriate to characterize any increased participation in our grant
competitions as costs associated with this priority.
Similar to Proposes Priority 2, Proposed Priority 4, as the inverse
of Proposed Priority 3, would not create costs or benefits. Instead,
Proposed Priorities 3 and 4 may have the result of shifting at least
some of the Department's grants among eligible entities. Again, since
application submission and participation in our discretionary grant
programs is voluntary, we do not think that it would be appropriate to
characterize any increased participation or differences in which
entities receive awards as costs associated with this priority.
The combined benefits of Proposed Priorities 1, 2, 3 and 4 could be
an increased diversity of awardees. To the extent a program helps build
the evidence base on a particular action or approach, such as through
Proposed Priorities 5 and 6, there may be a benefit in the form of
broadened information about the evidence on the grantee's approach in
the grantee's setting. However, it is not possible to quantify the
extent of such a benefit without knowing which programs will use these
priorities and in what circumstances.
Proposed priority 5 would allow the Secretary to require applicants
to submit a logic model, which is unlikely to generate any quantifiable
costs or benefits but may result in qualitative benefits if grantees
use the logic model to better plan and more clearly communicate the
intended effects of the project. Many grant competitions already
include this requirement and, to the extent it is included in
additional competitions in the future, we do not believe that it would
create a substantial burden for applicants, because we assume that
applicants in those programs would likely already have conceptualized
an implicit logic model for their applications and would, therefore,
experience only minimal paperwork burden associated with explaining it
in their applications.
Finally, proposed priority 6 would allow the Department to give
priority to applications that propose data collection after the
original project period. We believe that this would result only in
transfers between applicants that do not propose post-project data
collection and the grantees that benefited from this priority, since
the proposed priority would not require a grantee to fund the data
collection itself. Rather, at the completion of a project period, the
Department would make data collection awards under existing authority
to do so. As with proposed priorities 1 and 2, because this proposed
priority would neither expand nor restrict the universe of eligible
entities for any Department grant program, and since application
submission and participation in our discretionary grant programs is
voluntary, we do not think that it would be appropriate to characterize
any participation in data collection awards as costs associated with
this regulation. However, it is possible that, in electing to provide
data collection grants to a particular cohort of grantees, the
Department would have fewer funds available to fund new awards. At this
time, absent specific funding scenarios, it is not possible to predict
the specific costs related to shifts from new awards to data collection
awards. Longitudinal data are valuable as a resource for practitioners,
researchers, and the Department. Therefore, providing grants to allow
for extended data collection would likely benefit the field as a whole,
including by providing better evidence about what works and what does
not. Absent a particular context, it is not feasible to calculate a
specific benefit, but we anticipate benefits related to better
information about program effects.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are
defined as small organizations if they
[[Page 65739]]
are operated by a government overseeing a population below 50,000.
Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible
entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase in the
number of applications prepared and submitted annually for competitive
grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the proposed
priorities would significantly impact small entities beyond the
potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and
receiving, competitive grants from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed priorities do not contain any information collection
requirements.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
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. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of the 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.
Dated: November 22, 2019.
Betsy DeVos,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25765 Filed 11-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P