Vol. 80 Friday, 

No. 108 June 5, 2015 

Part II 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

Final Priority—Investing in Innovation Fund; Applications for New Awards; 

Investing in Innovation Fund—Validation Grants; Applications for New 

Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund—Scale-Up Grants; Rule and Notices 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
32210 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

[Docket ID ED–2015–OII–0006] 

RIN 1855–ZA10 

Final Priority—Investing in Innovation 

Fund 

[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.411A (Scale-up 

grants), 84.411B (Validation grants), and 

84.411C (Development grants)] 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement announces a priority 

under the Investing in Innovation Fund 

(i3). The Assistant Deputy Secretary 

may use this priority for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. 

The priority does not repeal or replace 

previously established priorities for this 

program. 

DATES: This priority is effective July 6, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison Moss, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4W319, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–7122 or by email: 

i3@ed.gov. 

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: Summary 

of the Major Provisions of This 

Regulatory Action: In this document, 

the Department announces a priority for 

the i3 program that promotes the 

implementation of comprehensive high 

school reform and redesign strategies. 

This priority may be used in the 

Development, Validation, or Scale-up 

tier of the i3 program in FY 2015 and 

future years, as appropriate. We have 

made one change from the priority 

proposed in the Federal Register on 

March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13803). The 

priority announced in this document 

includes language that expands the 

types of schools in which applicants 

may propose to implement 

comprehensive high school reform 

strategies. We make this change in 

response to comments received from the 

public and in an effort to ensure that the 

priority is designed to support high 

schools that are most in need of 

comprehensive reform. 

Costs and Benefits: The Assistant 

Deputy Secretary believes that the 

priority does not impose significant 

costs on eligible applicants seeking 

assistance through the i3 program. 

The priority is designed to be used in 

conjunction with several priorities that 

have already been established under the 

i3 program, and no priority, whether it 

is used as an absolute or competitive 

preference priority, affects the overall 

amount of funding available to 

individual applicants in any given fiscal 

year. 

In addition, we note that participation 

in this program is voluntary. Potential 

applicants need to consider carefully 

the effort that will be required to 

prepare a strong application, their 

capacity to implement a project 

successfully, and their chances of 

submitting a successful application. We 

believe that the costs imposed on 

applicants by the priority would be 

limited to paperwork burden related to 

preparing an application and that the 

benefits of implementing these 

proposals would outweigh any costs 

incurred by applicants. The costs of 

carrying out activities would be paid for 

with program funds and with matching 

funds that can be provided by privatesector partners other than the applicant. 

Thus, the costs of implementation need 

not be a burden for any eligible 

applicants, including small entities. 

Purpose of Program: The i3 program 

addresses two related challenges. First, 

there are too few practices in education 

supported by rigorous evidence of 

effectiveness, despite national attention 

paid to finding practices that are 

effective in improving education 

outcomes in the decade since the 

establishment of the Department’s 

Institute of Education Sciences. Second, 

there are limited incentives to expand 

effective practices substantially and to 

use those practices to serve more 

students across schools, districts, and 

States. As a result, students do not 

always have access to high-quality 

programs. 

The i3 program addresses these two 

challenges through its multi-tier 

structure that links the amount of 

funding that an applicant may receive to 

the quality of the evidence supporting 

the efficacy of the proposed project. 

Applicants proposing practices 

supported by limited evidence can 

receive small grants to support the 

development and initial evaluation of 

promising practices and help to identify 

new solutions to pressing challenges; 

applicants proposing practices 

supported by evidence from rigorous 

evaluations, such as large randomized 

controlled trials, can receive 

substantially larger grants to support 

expansion across the Nation. This 

structure provides incentives for 

applicants to build evidence of 

effectiveness of their proposed projects 

and to address the barriers to serving 

more students across schools, districts, 

and States so that applicants can 

compete for more sizeable grants. 

As importantly, all i3 projects are 

required to generate additional evidence 

of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use 

part of their grant award to conduct 

independent evaluations of their 

projects. This ensures that projects 

funded under the i3 program contribute 

significantly to improving the 

information available to practitioners 

and policymakers about which practices 

work, for which types of students, and 

in which contexts. More information 

about the i3 program, including 

information about eligible applicants, 

can be found in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, published in the 

Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 

FR 18682). 

Program Authority: American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 

Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111–5. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority (NPP) for this program in the 

Federal Register on March 17, 2015 (80 

FR 13803). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priority. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 14 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priority. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. 

Analysis of the Comments and 

Changes: An analysis of the comments 

and of any changes in the priority since 

publication of the NPP follows. 

Comment: Several commenters 

generally approved of the priority, but 

expressed concerns that the priority’s 

requirement that applicants serve 

schools that are eligible to operate Title 

I schoolwide assistance programs under 

section 1114 of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA), as amended, was problematic. 

One commenter noted that including 

such language in the priority would 

exclude projects that are designed to 

serve high school students who are 

participating in regionally benefical 

district-wide reform efforts. One 

commenter echoed this concern, and 

requested that we allow applicants to 

determine that not less than 40 percent 

of the students served by the project 

will be from low-income families by 

aggregating the students across all 

schools that will be served. Another 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 32211 

commenter indicated that, if we do 

intend to require that projects designed 

to address this priority support the 

above-referenced schools, we must take 

steps to ensure that applicants are aware 

of the different ways in which a school 

may qualify to operate Title I 

schoolwide assistance programs. The 

commenter explained that high school 

students do not often identify 

themselves as being eligible for free- and 

reduced-priced lunch, even if they do 

qualify for such assistance. A third 

commenter raised similar concerns and 

asked that we edit the priority so that it 

would support projects designed to 

support schools where not less than 40 

percent of students are from low-income 

families, as calculated under section 

1113 of the ESEA. The commenter also 

asked that we clarify that applicants 

could demonstrate eligibility under this 

priority by using a feeder pattern, and 

noted that the Department had issued 

non-regulatory guidance in 2003 

indicating that such an approach would 

be acceptable for demonstrating that a 

school meets Title I requirements. 

Discussion: We thank the commenters 

for expressing these concerns, and note 

that Congress, in the Explanatory 

Statement of the Fiscal Year 2015 

Appropriations Act, directed the 

Department, in making new awards 

with FY 2015 i3 funds, to establish a 

priority to support high school reform in 

schools where not less than 40 percent 

of students are from low-income 

families. We proposed to carry out this 

congressional directive through a 

priority to support schools eligible to 

operate Title I schoolwide assistance 

programs. However, upon review of the 

commenters’ concerns, we have 

determined that revisions to the priority 

are necessary in order to ensure that 

projects designed to address this 

priority implement high school reform 

strategies in schools with demonstrated 

need. We think the revisions we have 

made fully reflect Congress’ stated 

interest in supporting schools where not 

less than 40 percent of students are from 

low-income families, but allow enough 

flexibility to ensure that applicants have 

some discretion in determining which 

schools are most in need of 

comprehensive reform. 

We also note that upon further 

review, we determined that the 

proposed priority may cause 

unintended difficulties for applicants 

that are not yet able to identify, at the 

time their proposals are due to be 

submitted, all of the schools that would 

be included in their proposed projects. 

With the expanded language, we ensure 

that applicants with plans to scale their 

projects could do so, but note that those 

applicants would still need to establish 

that they will serve schools that can 

demonstrate that not less than 40 

percent of their students are from lowincome families. We also note that all i3 

grantees must serve high-need students. 

Changes: We have broadened the 

requirements for which types of schools 

may be included in a project under this 

priority. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the priority but requested 

clarification. Specifically, the 

commenter inquired whether an 

applicant could fully address the 

priority if it proposed to implement its 

project in a school that meets Title I 

schoolwide assistance eligibility 

criteria, but is not designated as a Title 

I school because needs are greater for 

other schools in its district. 

Discussion: If an applicant proposes 

to address the priority by designing a 

project that would serve a school that is 

eligible to operate Title I schoolwide 

assistance programs under section 1114 

of the ESEA, and the applicant provides 

appropriate evidence of that eligibility 

in its application, we would consider 

such a project as adequately addressing 

the priority even if the school in 

question is not currently operating such 

a program. We note that all i3 grantees 

must serve high-need students, and 

encourage applicants to consider 

carefully whether their proposed 

projects are reaching those students who 

are most in need of support. We also 

note that in response to concerns raised 

by other commenters, discussed above, 

we have further clarified the priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter inquired 

whether a ‘‘feeder-to-high school’’ 

intervention that reflects the continuous 

progression of instructional standards 

would address the priority. The 

commenter noted more generally that it 

is important we consider the learning 

trajectories of students, and how those 

trajectories may change over time. 

Discussion: We agree that projects 

should be designed to adapt to changing 

needs of students over time in order to 

better ensure appropriate support. 

In addition, we think that a project 

such as that described by the 

commenter could meet the priority, 

assuming the applicant provides a 

thorough and complete discussion of 

how its proposal is designed to increase 

the number and percentage of students 

who graduate from high school collegeand career-ready and enroll in college, 

other postsecondary education, or other 

career and technical education. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we expand the priority to include 

strategies that would improve school 

climate, particularly relationships 

between students and their teachers. 

Another commenter noted that the 

priority could be strengthened by more 

explicitly supporting expanded learning 

opportunities and strategies in order to 

improve student engagement in school. 

Discussion: We agree that school 

climate and student engagement play 

important roles in fostering student 

success and well-being, and indeed can 

be taken into account by an applicant 

when designing a comprehensive high 

school reform strategy. We note, 

however, that in 2013 (78 FR 18681), the 

i3 program established a priority that 

addresses low-performing schools. That 

priority includes areas of focus on 

improving school performance and 

culture, addressing non-academic 

factors that affect student achievement, 

and enhancing student engagement in 

learning. In addition, in 2014 (79 FR 

73425) the Department established a set 

of supplemental priorities and 

definitions that may be used in any 

discretionary grant program, including 

the i3 program. These priorities include 

one that specifically focuses on 

improving school climate. As such, we 

believe that mechanisms for addressing 

the commenters’ concerns already exist, 

and it is not necessary to change the 

priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we more specifically promote early 

college high schools and dual 

enrollment as strategies that would be 

supported by the priority. A second 

commenter suggested that we explicitly 

promote small schools of choice models, 

and noted that such strategies are 

supported by evidence that meets the 

What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards. Another commenter 

suggested that we revise the priority to 

include a specific focus on competencybased learning models. The commenter 

also requested that we encourage 

applicants to embed strategies for 

collecting and sharing data effectively 

into their proposed projects; 

specifically, the commenter suggested 

that projects designed to address this 

priority make teacher effectiveness and 

student postsecondary enrollment data 

publicly available. 

Discussion: While we agree that a 

proposed project that utilizes such 

strategies could address the priority, 

assuming the project meets all other 

necessary requirements, we decline to 

prescribe specific strategies to 

applicants. We think that applicants are 

best-suited to determine the most 

appropriate strategies for their 

communities, and encourage applicants 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
32212 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

to consider several factors, including the 

extent of available research on possible 

strategies, when designing their 

proposed projects. We generally 

encourage applicants to use data to 

make informed decisions, and note that 

any data that are shared publicly must 

be done so in accordance with 

applicable privacy laws. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we revise the priority to focus more 

clearly on comprehensive academic 

support that could be achieved through 

partnerships with postsecondary 

institutions or through extracurricular 

programs. The commenter also noted 

that students can improve their collegeand career-readiness through study of 

the social sciences, in addition to 

science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM). 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that efforts to improve 

comprehensive academic support, 

through partnerships with 

postsecondary institutions, 

extracurricular programs, or other 

means could be important aspects of a 

project designed to meet this priority. 

We note that such projects, assuming 

they are designed to be implemented in 

the appropriate school settings, would 

address this priority. However, we 

decline to prescribe specific strategies to 

applicants because we think that 

applicants are best-suited to determine 

the most appropriate strategies for their 

communities. 

We also agree that students can 

improve their college- and career-ready 

skills through the study of a wide 

variety of subjects that encompass the 

social sciences as well as STEM-related 

fields. We note that the second 

paragraph of the priority provides 

illustrative examples for applicants to 

consider when preparing an application; 

we will not disqualify an applicant that 

proposes a project designed to improve 

social studies education so long as that 

project meets the requirements outlined 

in the first paragraph of the priority and 

meets all relevant eligibility 

requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the priority and encouraged 

us to use it, in FY 2015 and in future 

years, in conjunction with a priority 

focused on improving principal 

effectiveness, which was published in 

the Federal Register, along with 14 

other supplemental priorities for 

discretionary grant programs, on 

December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425). 

Another commenter expanded on this 

suggestion, requesting that we revise the 

priority to reflect the need for 

meaningful professional development 

for teachers and principals in any 

comprehensive high school reform 

strategy. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for the suggested use of the priority in 

this and future competitions and 

recognize that such a combination 

would be possible. We also note that on 

March 30, 2015, we published in the 

Federal Register a notice inviting 

applications for i3 Development awards 

(80 FR 16648), and in that document we 

include the above-referenced principal 

effectiveness priority as an absolute 

priority. 

We agree with the commenter that 

teachers and principals who are 

supported to be effective are integral 

parts of any comprehensive high school 

reform strategy. We encourage 

applicants to consider carefully the 

needs of their schools, including their 

schools’ staff, when designing a project 

to address this priority. We do not think 

it is necessary to revise the priority in 

order to specifically mention 

meaningful professional development 

for teachers and principals. We want 

toprovide an applicant that is 

responding to this priority with the 

flexibility to decide whether to address 

this concern. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revise the priority to include a 

focus on cultivating partnerships with 

external organizations, noting that such 

strategic partnerships can help a grantee 

to maximize the impact of school 

improvement efforts. 

Discussion: We agree that building 

relationships with community and other 

partners is a useful strategy to ensure 

maximum impact, and long-term 

sustainability, of a project. We note that 

all LEA i3 grantees are required to 

establish partnerships with private 

sector entities and all i3 grantees are 

required to secure private sector 

matching funds before receiving their i3 

grant. We expect that a private sector 

entity with which a grantee chooses to 

partner will be a key stakeholder in the 

project with a vested interest in 

ensuring its ultimate success. Because 

we already require grantees to secure 

private sector matching funds to further 

support their i3 projects, we do not 

think think further revisions to the 

priority are necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter generally 

approved of the priority, but suggested 

that we revise the priority to allow 

applicants to focus on students of 

highest need as part of their proposed 

comprehensive high school reform 

strategy. The commenter suggested this 

revision in order to ensure that funded 

projects ensure equitable outcomes for 

all students. 

Discussion: All 13 grantees are 

required to implement practices that are 

designed to improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 

rates, or increase college enrollment and 

completion rates for high-need students. 

We agree with the commenter that 

projects designed to address this 

priority would need to propose 

strategies that are comprehensive, but 

we note that applicants should consider 

carefully the needs in their schools. We 

think the applicant is best-suited to 

determine how best to improve 

outcomes for all students through a 

comprehensive high school reform 

strategy, and do not think that changes 

to the priority are necessary to address 

the commenter’s concern. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to revise the priority to 

include a focus on increasing racial and 

socioeconomic diversity, and decreasing 

racial and socioeconomic isolation, in 

schools. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that maintaining racial and 

socioeconomic diversity in schools is 

important to ensure that students are 

fully prepared to be successful in their 

careers and in life. We thank the 

commenter for noting that on December 

10, 2014, the Department published in 

the Federal Register a priority that 

focuses on increasing diversity, and that 

the priority is designed so that the 

Department has the option to use it in 

any discretionary grant program (79 FR 

73425). We note that in FY 2015 or in 

future years, the i3 program could use 

this priority as an absolute or 

competitive preference priority in 

combination with the priority 

announced in this document. We also 

note that other Department programs, 

such as the Magnet Schools Assistance 

Program, have encouraged applicants to 

propose strategies to increase diversity 

in schools. Because mechanisms for 

including a focus on diversity already 

exist, we do not think a change to the 

priority is necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to ensure that the priority 

supports projects that are designed to 

use comprehensive high school reform 

strategies in a way that increases the 

number of low-income students who 

matriculate into postsecondary 

programs. 

Discussion: We agree that any priority 

used in a discretionary grant program 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 32213 

should include a clear discussion of the 

outcomes we wish to see as a result of 

funded projects. We note that the 

priority requires that projects be 

designed to increase the number and 

percentage of students who graduate 

high school college- and career-ready 

and enroll in postsecondary programs. 

We also note that the priority requires 

that projects designed to address it be 

implemented in schools with large 

populations of low-income students. 

Finally, we note the i3 program’s overall 

requirement that funded projects be 

designed to improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 

rates, or increase college enrollment and 

completion rates for high-need students. 

While we agree that the priority should 

help to increase the number of lowincome students who matriculate into 

postsecondary programs, we do not 

think that changes to the priority are 

necessary to address this. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters 

expressed general support for the 

priority, but noted concerns that do not 

directly relate to it. One commenter 

expressed interest in learning about the 

other mechanisms the Department has 

to provide support to schools across the 

nation that are in need of additional 

funding. Another commenter expressed 

concern that our current portfolio of 

grantees does not employ external staff 

to carry out project evaluations, thus 

introducing bias to any impact findings 

that are ultimately reported. Finally, a 

commenter requested that in future 

competitions we use a pre-application 

process in the Validation and Scale-up 

competitions, similar to the process we 

have used in the past several years for 

the Development competition. 

Discussion: Although we generally do 

not respond to comments that are not 

related to the proposed priority 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13803), we think 

it is important to clarify several aspects 

of the i3 program as well as the 

Department’s mechanisms for providing 

assistance more broadly. First, we note 

that the majority of the funding the 

Department provides to States and local 

educational agencies (LEAs) is through 

State-administered formula programs, 

such as Part A of Title I of the ESEA and 

Part B of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act. This means, 

generally, that if an entity meets the 

eligibility requirements set out in a 

formula program, that entity is entitled 

to funding and does not need to 

compete. By contrast, the funding the 

Department has provided to grantees 

under the i3 program and other 

discretionary grant programs represents 

a relatively small portion of the total 

funding with which we support 

students. For information on the 

Department’s planned funding for 

discretionary grant programs for FY 

2015, please review the Forecast of 

Funding Opportunities at www2.ed.gov/ 

fund/grant/find/edlite-forecast.html. 

Second, we note that per the notice of 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

this program, published in the Federal 

Register on March 27, 2013 (78 FR 

18681), all i3 grantees are required to 

conduct an independent evaluation of 

their projects, which means that the 

evaluation must be designed and carried 

out independent of, but in coordination 

with, any employees of the entities who 

develop a process, product, strategy, or 

practice and are implementing it. We 

think the independent evaluation is a 

critical element of the i3 program and 

note that we have required grantees to 

conduct independent evaluations since 

the first year in which we provided 

funding. 

Finally, we appreciate the suggestion 

to use a pre-application process in the 

Validation and Scale-up competitions 

and we are pleased to learn that the preapplication process used in the 

Development competition has worked 

well for applicants. Our primary reason 

for implementing the process in FY 

2012 and in subsequent years was to 

reduce burden for Development 

applicants proposing to pilot brand new 

ideas. We also wanted to find a way to 

better manage very high numbers of 

applications submitted to the 

Development competition. By first 

asking applicants to submit a sevenpage pre-application, and providing 

those applicants with initial feedback 

from expert reviewers, we greatly 

reduced the volume of applicants 

submitting full applications, reducing 

burden for applicants that needed to 

spend more time developing their 

proposals in order to increase their 

likelihood of ultimately submitting a 

successful application. We also found 

that the process decreased burden for 

Department staff and expert reviewers. 

Most importantly, we found that with 

this process, we were still able to fund 

high-quality Development applications. 

While this process has worked well in 

the Development competition, we are 

not likely to use it in the Validation or 

Scale-up competitions for two reasons. 

First, we receive far fewer applications 

for these competitions, so the initial 

triage provided by a pre-application 

process is not necessary. Second, an 

important aspect of the Validation and 

Scale-up competitions is the level of 

evidence that an applicant must use to 

support its proposed project. While in 

the Development competition, we use 

the pre-application process to provide 

initial feedback on novel approaches, 

initial feedback on Validation and 

Scale-up applications would be quite 

different, because the proposed 

approaches, to be eligible for funding, 

must be supported by strong or 

moderate evidence of their 

effectiveness. Therefore, while we 

appreciate the commenter’s suggestion 

to use a pre-application process for all 

three competitions, we do not think the 

approach is necessary or practical. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

general disapproval of the priority and 

the i3 program. The commenter noted 

that our rationale for proposing the 

priority was flawed and that 

applications funded under this priority 

will not lead to projects that 

successfully improve outcomes for 

students. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concerns. Through the i3 

program, we seek to fund innovative 

approaches to persistent challenges in 

education, and require that all i3 

grantees partner with an independent 

evaluator in order to determine which 

approaches work. While we strive to 

fund projects that are most likely to 

have successful outcomes, we 

understand that it is equally important 

to learn which approaches do not work, 

and why. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the priority and noted the 

important role career and technical 

education programming can play in 

comprehensive high school reform 

models. 

Discussion: We thank the commenter 

for the support. 

Changes: None. 

FINAL PRIORITY: 

Priority—Implementing 

Comprehensive High School Reform and 

Redesign. 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to support comprehensive high 

school reform and redesign strategies in 

high schools eligible to operate Title I 

schoolwide programs under section 

1114 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended, or 

in schools that can demonstrate that not 

less than 40 percent of students are from 

low-income families. These strategies 

must be designed to increase the 

number and percentage of students who 

graduate from high school college- and 

career-ready and enroll in college, other 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
32214 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

postsecondary education, or other career 

and technical education. 

These strategies could include 

elements such as implementing a 

rigorous college- and career-ready 

curriculum; providing accelerated 

learning opportunities; supporting 

personalized learning; developing 

robust links between student work and 

real-world experiences to better prepare 

students for their future; improving the 

readiness of students for post-secondary 

education in STEM fields; or reducing 

the need for remediation, among others. 

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)). 

Note: In the i3 competition, each 

application must choose to address one of the 

absolute priorities, and projects are grouped 

by that absolute priority for the purposes of 

peer review and funding determinations. For 

the competition with FY 2015 funds, 

Congress directed the Department to 

designate the priority announced in this 

document as an absolute priority. 

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)). 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 this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine 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 final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action 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 

upon 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 are issuing this final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with 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. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

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. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 32215 

text or Adobe 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: May 27, 2015. 

Nadya Chinoy Dabby, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13671 Filed 6–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES