```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72600-72605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28939]

[[Page 72600]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions--Charter 
Schools Program (CSP) Grants for National Leadership Activities

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CFDA Number: 84.282N.
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
proposes priorities, requirements, and definitions for CSP Grants for 
National Leadership Activities and may use these priorities, 
requirements, and definitions for a competition in fiscal year (FY) 
2013 and later years. The Assistant Deputy Secretary is taking this 
action to ensure that projects funded with CSP Grants for National 
Leadership Activities address key policy issues currently facing 
charter schools and impact stakeholders on a national scale.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Brian Martin, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W224, 
Washington, DC 20202-5970.
    If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following 
address: brian.martin@ed.gov. You must include the term ``National 
Leadership Activities'' in the subject line of your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Martin. Telephone: (202) 205-
9085 or by email: brian.martin@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:
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this document. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the final priorities, requirements, and definitions, we urge 
you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement, or 
definition that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these 
proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. 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 the Department's programs and activities.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about this notice in room 4W224, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 
Washington, DC 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. 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.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the CSP is to increase national 
understanding of the charter school model by--
    (1) Providing financial assistance for the planning, program 
design, and initial implementation of charter schools;
    (2) Evaluating the effects of charter schools, including the 
effects on students, student achievement, student growth, staff, and 
parents;
    (3) Expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available 
to students across the Nation; and
    (4) Encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools 
for facilities financing in an amount more nearly commensurate to the 
amount the States have typically provided for traditional public 
schools.
    The purpose of the CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities is 
to support efforts by eligible entities to improve the quality of 
charter schools by providing technical assistance and other types of 
support on issues of national significance and scope.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7221-7221i. CSP Grants for National 
Leadership Activities are authorized under 20 U.S.C. 7221d(a).

    Proposed Priortities: This notice contains five proposed 
priorities.

Background

    The Department most recently conducted competitions for CSP Grants 
for National Leadership Activities in FYs 2006 and 2010. In those 
competitions, we invited applications for projects designed to improve 
stakeholder capacity to support high-quality charter schools but did 
not require or give competitive preference to particular types of 
projects. As a result, applications submitted under the competition 
varied considerably in scope and content.
    To ensure that projects funded with CSP Grants for National 
Leadership Activities in future years address key policy issues facing 
charter schools on a national scale, the Department proposes the 
priorities in this notice. These priorities take into consideration the 
continuing growth of charter schools across the nation and the 
increasing need to support the capacity and oversight of all charter 
schools. The priorities also recognize the important role that charter 
schools can play in improving educational outcomes for students with 
disabilities and English Learners and in creating personalized, 
technology-based learning environments for high-need students (as 
defined in this notice).

Proposed Priority 1--Improving Efficiency Through Economies of Scale

Background

    Traditional public school districts benefit from economies of scale 
across multiple aspects of school operations. Compared to charter 
schools, traditional public schools tend to have higher student 
enrollment, which may result in lower average costs per student for 
various activities or a wider variety of available support services. 
For example, traditional public school districts can make mass 
purchases of supplies, equipment, and non-academic services, including 
facilities maintenance, food, data systems, insurance, and 
transportation services. These districts can consolidate academic 
services across a large number of schools, including services such as 
curriculum development and alignment, student assessments, and 
professional development for teachers and school leaders. They can 
consolidate services for specific student populations, such as students 
with disabilities or English Learners. They can provide a range of arts 
and athletic opportunities for their students. They have the ability, 
through different funding structures, sustained economies of scale, and 
historical relationships with colleges, universities, and nonprofit 
organizations, to recruit teachers and leaders more broadly, and in a 
more structured way, than charter schools.
    Charter schools are explicitly designed to have the autonomy to 
employ innovative, promising

[[Page 72601]]

approaches to public education. This autonomy, however, can limit 
charter schools' ability to take advantage of the economies of scale 
available to traditional public school districts, impeding the charter 
school sector's ability to improve its performance and scale up high-
quality charter school models.
    As the charter school sector continues to grow, there is an 
increasing opportunity for charter schools to form consortia to achieve 
the benefits of economies of scale and, thus, improve performance and 
increase the number of high-quality charter schools nationwide. The 
Department proposes this priority to support such efforts.

Proposed Priority

    This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and 
scope that promote shared systems for acquiring goods or services to 
achieve efficiencies in the use of time, staff, money, services for 
special populations, or other resources for the purpose of creating and 
sustaining high-quality charter schools (as defined in this notice).
    An applicant addressing this priority is not required to apply as 
part of a partnership or consortium, but must include plans for 
developing a consortium, or consortia of charter schools that will 
share systems for acquiring goods or services. The plans must include 
detailed descriptions (including supporting documentation) of the 
following:
    (1) The activities of the proposed consortium or consortia and 
demonstrate how and to what extent the activities will achieve 
efficiencies in the use of time, staff, money, services for special 
populations, or other areas related to operating high-quality charter 
schools;
    (2) Proposed members of the consortium or consortia, how the 
composition of this consortium or consortia contributes to achieving 
efficiencies, the specific activities each member will carry out, and 
how specific activities will include entities outside of the network 
that the lead applicant currently manages;
    (3) How proposed project activities will help create and sustain 
high-quality charter schools;
    (4) How information about the proposed project's activities will be 
disseminated primarily to charter schools as the primary stakeholder 
group, and secondarily to other stakeholders, such as charter school 
support organizations and authorized public chartering agencies, as 
appropriate, at the charter school national level (as defined in this 
notice);
    (5) How the dissemination strategy will include assembling a 
community of practice (as defined in this notice) for the stakeholder 
group(s) served; and
    (6) The national significance and scope of the proposed project.

Proposed Priority 2--Improving Accountability

Background

    While there are many high-performing charter schools across the 
nation, charter school performance varies significantly and too many 
persistently low-performing charter schools are not held accountable 
for their results. (For example, see the January 30, 2013 report from 
the Center for Research on Education Outcome's entitled, ``Charter 
School Growth and Replication'', which analyzes student performance and 
progress data from 25 States, and the District of Columbia, that have 
enacted charter school laws.) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://credo.stanford.edu/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite 43 distinct sets of State laws governing charter schools, 
and almost 1,000 different entities authorizing charter schools, there 
are some common promising practices that provide the degree of 
oversight necessary to ensure that charter schools deliver on their 
promises. Over the lifespan of a charter school, authorizing practices 
will have a direct impact on the quality of the charter school sector. 
Authorizers are responsible for conducting rigorous application reviews 
to ensure new schools are of a high quality. Once schools are open, 
accountability practices for charter schools need to be strengthened 
within States. For example, charter school renewal should occur 
regularly enough to ensure accountability and provide an opportunity 
for amendment of the charter or closure of poor-performing schools. 
Authorizers should have clear policies to hold schools accountable more 
consistently for meeting their academic, financial, and operational 
performance goals, as well as for complying with all applicable laws, 
including civil rights laws requiring equal access.
    Through the development, refinement, and dissemination of 
authorizers' promising practices in areas such as charter school 
approval, performance monitoring, charter contract renewal, and charter 
school closure, the Department expects authorizers to hold charter 
schools more accountable and to increase the number of high-quality 
seats available to students. These promising practices will help ensure 
that new charter schools have demonstrated that they are positioned to 
succeed, poor-performing charter schools are closed, and high-quality 
charter schools are replicated and expanded to serve more students.

Proposed Priority

    This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and 
scope that are designed to improve authorized public chartering 
agencies' capacity to conduct rigorous application reviews, monitor and 
oversee charter schools using data and measurable performance goals, 
close underperforming schools, replicate and expand high-performing 
schools, maintain a portfolio of high-quality charter schools, and 
evaluate and communicate the performance of that portfolio.
    Applicants addressing this priority must provide detailed 
descriptions (including supporting documentation) of the following:
    (1) How the proposed project will improve, within a variety of 
communities in one or more States, authorized public chartering 
agencies' capacity to:
    i. Approve only high-quality charter schools that meet the 
standards of a rigorous application process and review;
    ii. Monitor and oversee charter schools through the regular 
collection of data, including student performance and financial data, 
and measurable performance goals;
    iii. Identify schools eligible for renewal and those that should be 
closed through clear renewal and revocation criteria;
    iv. Maintain portfolios of high-quality charter schools by 
evaluating authorizer and portfolio performance and disseminating 
information on the performance of those portfolios;
    (2) The applicant's prior success in improving, within a variety of 
communities in one or more States, authorized public chartering 
agencies' capacity to:
    i. Approve only high-quality charter schools that meet the 
standards of a rigorous application process and review;
    ii. Monitor and oversee charter schools through the regular 
collection of data, including student performance and financial data, 
and measurable performance goals;
    iii. Identify schools eligible for renewal and those that should be 
closed through clear renewal and revocation criteria;
    iv. Maintain portfolios of high-quality charter schools by 
evaluating authorizer and portfolio performance and disseminating 
information on the performance of those portfolios, and help improve 
the ability of other

[[Page 72602]]

authorized public chartering agencies to produce similar results;
    (3) How dissemination activities focus on authorized public 
chartering agencies as the primary stakeholder group, and secondarily 
on other stakeholders, such as charter school support organizations or 
charter schools, as appropriate, at the charter school national level;
    (4) How the dissemination strategy will include assembling a 
community of practice for the stakeholder group(s) served; and
    (5) The national significance and scope of the proposed project.

Proposed Priority 3--Students With Disabilities

Background

    As public schools, it is essential that charter schools provide 
equitable access and appropriate educational services to all students, 
regardless of disability, as set forth in the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973 and the Department's Section 504 regulations. A GAO report 
released in June, 2012 found that charter schools enrolled a lower 
percentage of students with disabilities than traditional public 
schools. This discrepancy may have many contributing factors that are 
likely to vary from school to school. Regardless, charter schools 
should have the capacity to serve all students with disabilities 
irrespective of severity or type of disability. The Department believes 
that charter schools are well-positioned to develop new approaches to 
meeting the needs of students with disabilities and improve educational 
outcomes for these students. The Department proposes a priority for 
projects designed to improve charter schools' capacity, through a 
variety of methods, to recruit and serve students with disabilities 
more effectively.

Proposed Priority

    This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and 
scope that are designed to increase access to charter schools for 
students with disabilities and increase the schools' enrollment, as 
well as improve achievement (including student achievement and student 
growth) and attainment (including high school graduation rates and 
college enrollment rates) for students with disabilities in charter 
schools, through one or both of the following activities:
    (1) Developing strategies and tools to increase access to charter 
schools for students with disabilities and increase the schools' 
capacity to enroll students with disabilities, and improve student 
achievement, student growth, high school graduation rates, and college 
enrollment rates for students with disabilities.
    (2) Disseminating promising practices that increase access to 
charter schools for students with disabilities and increase the 
schools' capacity to enroll students with disabilities; and improve 
student achievement, student growth, high school graduation rates, and 
college enrollment rates for students with disabilities.

Proposed Priority 4--English Learners

Background

    From 2001 to 2010 the number of students identified as English 
Learners increased significantly, growing from approximately 3,700,000 
to 4,660,275 nationwide. In 2011, the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress reports on mathematics, reading, and science 
showed a difference in scores between English Learners and non-English 
Learners of 49, 47, and 62 percent, respectively.\2\ The Department 
believes that charter schools are well-positioned to develop new 
approaches to meeting the needs of English Learners and can play an 
integral role in closing the achievement and attainment gaps between 
English Learners and their peers. The Department proposes a priority 
for projects designed to improve charter schools' capacity, through a 
variety of methods, to recruit and serve English Learners more 
effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ell-1.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Priority

    This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and 
scope that are designed to increase access to charter schools for 
English Learners and increase the schools' enrollment, as well as 
improve achievement (including student achievement and student growth) 
and attainment (including English proficiency, high school graduation 
rates, and college enrollment rates) for English Learners in charter 
schools, through one or more of the following activities:
    (1) Developing strategies and tools to increase access to charter 
schools for English Learners and increase the schools' capacity to 
enroll English Learners, and improve student achievement, student 
growth, English proficiency, high school graduation rates, and college 
enrollment rates for English Learner students.
    (2) Disseminating promising practices that increase access to 
charter schools for English Learners and increase the schools' capacity 
to enroll English Learners, and improve student achievement, student 
growth, English proficiency, high school graduation rates, and college 
enrollment rates for English Learners.

Proposed Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning

Background

    Learning models that blend traditional, classroom-based teaching 
and learning with virtual, online, or digital delivery of personalized 
instructional content offer the potential to transform public education 
and create significant improvements in students' achievement, growth, 
engagement, and non-cognitive skills. In order to achieve superior 
outcomes, the effective development and implementation of these models 
are essential.
    In particular, technology-enabled learning tools must be 
functional, engaging, user-friendly, appropriate for students with 
diverse learning needs, and aligned with college-and-career-ready 
standards. Moreover, it is of great importance to ensure equitable 
access to and use of these tools and supports by high-need students.
    In light of the operational autonomy that charter schools possess 
and the focus that many of these schools have on serving high-need 
students, charter schools are uniquely positioned to contribute to the 
development and implementation of instructional models that effectively 
incorporate technology-enabled personalized learning tools and supports 
for high-need students. The Department proposes this priority to 
stimulate and support such efforts.

Proposed Priority

    This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and 
scope that are designed to improve achievement and attainment outcomes 
for high-need students through the development and implementation in 
charter schools of technology-enabled instructional models, tools, and 
supports that personalize instruction.

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,

[[Page 72603]]

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)).

Proposed Requirements

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
proposes the following requirements for this program. We may apply one 
or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in 
effect. By requiring that applicants provide a charter school logic 
model supporting their projects and restricting eligibility for grants 
to specific types of entities, the Department will ensure that grantees 
have the preparation and experience to be successful with a CSP Grant 
for National Leadership Activities.

Proposed Application Requirements

Logic Model
    An applicant for a CSP Grant for National Leadership Activities 
must provide a charter school logic model (as defined in this notice) 
supporting its project.
Eligibility
    Eligible applicants include (1) State educational agencies (SEAs) 
in States with a State statute specifically authorizing the 
establishment of charter schools; (2) authorized public chartering 
agencies; (3) public and private nonprofit organizations with a mission 
that explicitly includes supporting charter schools; and (4) public and 
private nonprofit organizations in partnership with an SEA, authorized 
public chartering agency, or a public or private nonprofit organization 
with a mission that explicitly includes supporting charter schools. 
Eligible applicants may apply as a group or consortium.

    Note: The Secretary invites comment on this eligibility 
requirement, particularly regarding whether public and private 
nonprofit organizations should be required to have a mission that 
explicitly includes supporting charter schools and the elements that 
should be required to confirm eligibility.

Proposed Definitions

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
proposes the following definitions for this program. We may apply one 
or more of these definitions in any year in which the program is in 
effect.
    The proposed definitions for ``high-quality charter school'' and 
``significant compliance issue'' are based on the definitions in the 
notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions for the CSP 
Replication and Expansion grant program, published in the Federal 
Register on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40898). The proposed definitions for 
``graduation rate'' and ``student achievement'' are identical to the 
definitions in the Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary Grant 
Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 
78510), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637). The proposed 
definitions for ``student growth'' and ``high-need students'' are based 
on the definitions in the Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary 
Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 
(75 FR 78510), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637). The 
proposed definition for ``charter school logic model'' is based on the 
definition of ``logic model'' in the Direct Grant Programs and 
Definitions That Apply to Department Regulations Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2012 (77 
FR 74392).
    Charter school logic model means a well-specified conceptual 
framework that identifies key components of the proposed practice, 
strategy, or intervention (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are 
hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and 
describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, 
theoretically and operationally.
    Charter school national level means, with respect to an applicant's 
dissemination strategy, that the strategy covers a wide variety of 
charter schools, authorized public chartering agencies, charter support 
organizations, and other stakeholder groups within multiple States 
across the country, including rural and urban areas.
    Community of practice means a group of stakeholders that interacts 
regularly to solve a persistent problem or to improve practice in an 
area that is important to them and the success of the grant project.
    Graduation rate means a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate 
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and may also include an extended-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with 34 CFR 
200.19(b)(1)(v) if the State in which the proposed project is 
implemented has been approved by the Secretary to use such a rate under 
Title I of the ESEA.
    High-need students means children and students at risk of 
educational failure, such as children and students who are living in 
poverty, who are English Learners, who are far below grade level or who 
are not on track to becoming college- or career-ready by graduation, 
who have left school or college before receiving, respectively, a 
regular high school diploma or a college degree or certificate, who are 
at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who 
are in foster care, who are pregnant or parenting teenagers, who have 
been incarcerated, who are new immigrants, who are migrant, or who have 
disabilities.
    High-quality charter school means a school that shows evidence of 
strong academic results for the past three years (or over the life of 
the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three years), 
based on the following factors:
    (1) Increased student academic achievement and attainment for all 
students, including, as applicable, educationally disadvantaged 
students;
    (2) Either (i) Demonstrated success in closing historic achievement 
gaps for the subgroups of students described in section 
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA; or
    (ii) No significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups 
of students described in section 1111 (b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA and 
significant gains in student academic achievement have been made with 
all populations of students served by the charter school;
    (3) Achieved results (including performance on statewide tests, 
annual high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and 
college persistence rates where applicable and available) for low-
income and other educationally disadvantaged students served by the 
charter school; and
    (4) No significant compliance issues (as defined in this notice), 
particularly in the areas of student safety and financial management.
    Significant compliance issue means a violation that did, will, or 
could lead to the revocation of a school's charter.
    Student achievement means--
    (a) For tested grades and subjects--
    (1) A student's score on the State's assessments under the ESEA; 
and, as appropriate,

[[Page 72604]]

    (2) Other measures of student learning, such as those described in 
paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and 
comparable across schools.
    (b) For non-tested grades and subjects: Alternative measures of 
student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests 
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language 
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that 
are rigorous and comparable across schools.
    Student growth means the change in achievement data for an 
individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may also 
include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across 
classrooms.

Final Priorities, Requirements and Definitions

    We will announce the final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the 
final priorities, requirements, and definitions after considering 
responses to this notice 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 proposed priorities, 
requirements, and definitions, 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 practical--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 these proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits 
justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. 
The Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with 
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to 
provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to 
comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in 
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that the public understands the 
Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the 
requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and 
financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly 
understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of 
collection requirements on respondents.
    These proposed regulations contain information collection 
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-
0006; these proposed regulations do not affect the currently approved 
data collection.
    We estimate that each applicant would spend approximately 176 hours 
of staff time to address the proposed requirements, prepare the 
application, and obtain necessary clearances. The total number of hours 
for all expected applicants is an estimated 7,040 hours. We estimate 
the total cost per hour of the applicant-level staff who will carry out 
this work to be $57 per hour. The total estimated cost for all 
applicants would be $401,280.
    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.

[[Page 72605]]

    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 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 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: November 26, 2013.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Innovation and 
Improvement, delegated the authority to perform the functions and 
duties of the Assistant Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28939 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```