11550 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, above. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

4. Collection of Information 

This rule would call for no new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

5. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This rule would not affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

would not create an environmental risk 

to health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it would not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This rule does not use a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01, and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves the 

promulgation of special operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Redesignate §§ 117.437 through 

117.439 as §§ 117.438 through 117.440, 

respectively, and add new § 117.437 to 

read as follows: 

§ 117.437 Chevron Oil Company Canal. 

The draw of the SR 3090, mile 0.05, 

at Fourchon, shall open on signal if at 

least one-hour notice is given. 

Dated: February 11, 2015. 

Kevin S. Cook, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04483 Filed 3–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OESE–0134; CFDA 

Number: 84.415A] 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

State Tribal Education Partnership 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

announces priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for the 

State Tribal Education Partnership 

(STEP) program. The Assistant Secretary 

may use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for competitions in fiscal year 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11551 

(FY) 2015 and later years. We take this 

action to enable tribal educational 

agencies (TEAs) to administer formula 

grant programs under the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

as amended (ESEA), and to improve the 

partnership between TEAs and the State 

educational agencies (SEAs) and local 

educational agencies (LEAs) that 

educate students from the affected 

tribes. 

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are effective April 3, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shahla Ortega, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 3W223, Washington, DC 20202– 

6450. Telephone: (202) 453–5602 or by 

email: shahla.ortega@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: 

Purposes of Program: The purposes of 

the STEP program are to: (1) Promote 

increased collaboration between TEAs 

and the SEAs and LEAs that serve 

students from affected tribes; and (2) 

build the capacity of TEAs to conduct 

certain administrative functions under 

certain ESEA formula grant programs for 

eligible schools, as determined by the 

TEA, SEA, and LEA. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7451(a)(4). 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria (NPP) for this program 

in the Federal Register on October 31, 

2014 (79 FR 64716). That notice 

contained background information and 

our reasons for proposing the particular 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. This notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria contains several 

significant changes from the NPP. We 

fully explain these changes in the 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

section below. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, five parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. Generally we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria since 

publication of the NPP follows. 

General 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the STEP program was a good idea. 

Several commenters supported specific 

provisions in the NPP, including the 

requirement for projects to include at 

least one public school, the provision 

permitting the inclusion of offreservation schools, the provision 

requiring the preliminary and final 

agreements to be signed by the TEA, 

SEA, and LEA, and the program-specific 

selection criteria. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for the STEP program and for the 

specific provisions in the NPP. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters 

suggested that the Department expand 

the STEP program to allow TEAs and 

tribes to: coordinate all education 

programs; provide support services and 

technical assistance to schools serving 

tribal children; provide tribal ‘‘wrap 

around’’ services in schools located on 

or near reservations and service areas; 

perform child find duties; and develop 

or update tribal education codes. 

Discussion: We agree that social 

services and other support services are 

very important, and that coordination 

and cooperation between the tribe and 

LEA regarding such services, including 

‘‘wrap around’’ services, can lead to 

positive outcomes for students. We also 

agree that it would be appropriate for a 

STEP project to include cooperation 

between the TEA and the LEA or its 

schools in coordinating such services, 

assuming the STEP funds are not used 

for direct services or to supplant other 

funding sources. For example, a TEA 

that currently operates a preschool 

program could include provisions in the 

preliminary and final agreements 

regarding the transition of children to 

public school kindergarten, including 

required meetings between the relevant 

school district staff and tribal preschool 

staff, even if not directly tied to one of 

the ESEA formula grant programs. 

Therefore, we are revising the 

preliminary agreement requirements to 

include other activities as agreed by the 

parties. We are also revising the first 

purpose under the Purposes of Program 

section to broaden the scope of STEP. 

Many tribes operate schools funded 

by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), 

or have BIE-operated schools on their 

reservation. While it would not be 

consistent with the purposes of STEP 

for a grantee to use STEP funds for 

direct services at those schools, STEP 

funds could be used to coordinate 

services provided by BIE schools and 

public schools. In such event, the 

parties would include specific 

provisions for such coordination in the 

preliminary and final agreements. 

With respect to the suggestion to 

expand the STEP program for child find 

purposes, it would be duplicative and 

not an appropriate use of STEP funds to 

conduct child find for children with 

disabilities because there are other 

sources of funding, such as funds under 

Parts B and C of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), that 

are specifically provided for that 

purpose. Under Parts B and C of the 

IDEA, the Department provides funds to 

tribal entities through the BIE, which 

may be used for child find purposes to 

identify infants, toddlers, and children 

with disabilities ages birth through five. 

Additionally, under the IDEA, the BIE is 

responsible for identifying, locating, and 

evaluating children with disabilities on 

reservations ages five through 21 

enrolled in BIE-funded elementary and 

secondary schools. For infants and 

toddlers residing on reservations, the 

State lead agency is responsible under 

IDEA Part C for ensuring that children 

with disabilities ages birth through three 

residing in the State are identified, 

located, and evaluated. With respect to 

all other children ages three through 21 

on reservations, the SEA is responsible 

for ensuring that all children with 

disabilities residing in the State are 

identified, located, and evaluated. 

However, increased collaboration 

between the TEA, SEA, and LEA, which 

is a likely outcome of a STEP project, 

can lead to improved communications 

regarding all services, including the 

early identification, location, and 

evaluation of children with disabilities. 

With regard to developing tribal 

education codes, we understand that 

such codes are important. Moreover, 

developing a tribal education code may 

be helpful in implementing a STEP 

project, and TEAs may wish to pursue 

this activity. However, we have chosen 

not to focus on updating and developing 

education codes because of the limited 

resources available for STEP and 

because we wanted to focus attention on 

the broader purpose of STEP grants: 

Fostering collaboration with SEAs and 

LEAs. 

We recognize that several of the 

commenters’ suggested changes reflect 

provisions that are in section 7135 of 

the ESEA (‘‘Grants to Tribes for 

Education Administrative Planning and 

Development’’). The STEP program is 

funded under the general national 

activities authority in section 7131 of 

the ESEA, and is different from the 

program in section 7135. Thus, we are 

not required to include the activities 

that are in that program, and decline to 

do so for the reasons explained above. 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
11552 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Changes: We have revised the 

requirements of the preliminary 

agreement by adding paragraph (a)(2) to 

require an explanation of how the 

parties will cooperate to administer any 

other educational programs or services 

upon which the parties have agreed. We 

have also revised the first purpose in the 

‘‘Purposes of Program’’ section of this 

notice to correspond with the broader 

cooperative goal, by deleting the phrase 

‘‘in the administration of certain ESEA 

formula grant programs.’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that tribes or TEAs should have the 

ability to apply directly for ESEA 

formula funding under the STEP 

program and assume the appropriate 

authority. Another commenter stated 

that when SEAs and LEAs manage 

‘‘pass-through’’ dollars, those agencies 

retain money rather than spending all of 

the funds on students. The commenter 

requested that TEAs receive the funds 

and manage the programs. 

Discussion: We cannot change the 

underlying statutory requirements of the 

ESEA State-administered formula grant 

programs through this regulatory action, 

including the provisions requiring that 

we grant the funds to SEAs, which then 

distribute them to LEAs, or the 

provisions permitting a certain portion 

of funds to be used for SEA-level and 

LEA-level administration of the 

programs. The STEP program does not 

provide funds for direct services. The 

purpose of the STEP program is to 

increase collaboration between TEAs, 

SEAs, and LEAs, and to increase the 

capacity of the TEA so that the TEA can 

assume LEA-type or SEA-type 

functions, within the existing statutory 

framework. 

Changes: None. 

Priorities 

Comment: Although one commenter 

expressed support for the two 

priorities—one for established TEAs and 

one for TEAs with limited prior 

experience—two other commenters 

suggested that we modify the respective 

scopes of the two priorities by changing 

the definition of ‘‘established TEA.’’ 

Because the effect of the priorities 

largely turns on the definition of 

‘‘established TEA,’’ we discuss those 

comments here. 

These commenters stated that the 

proposed definition of ‘‘established 

TEA’’ is too broad and would include 

many very small TEAs that would meet 

the proposed definition but would be at 

a competitive disadvantage compared to 

larger TEAs. One of these commenters 

recommended that we narrow the 

definition of ‘‘established TEA’’ by 

including only those TEAs that have a 

specified number of staff members, an 

agreement with the SEA or LEA, and an 

existing tribal education code. The other 

commenter requested that we limit 

established TEAs to those TEAs with 

sufficient staff capacity, as determined 

by the tribe, as well as an agreement 

with the SEA or LEA and an existing 

tribal education code. These two 

commenters also did not support the 

proposed criteria that an established 

TEA have administered an education 

program or grant program, suggesting 

that these factors do not demonstrate 

that a TEA is, in fact, established. 

Another commenter requested that we 

provide TEAs with limited prior 

experience more technical assistance in 

preparing and implementing the grant. 

Discussion: We created two priorities 

to minimize any competitive 

disadvantage that newly created TEAs 

and TEAs with relatively little 

experience operating education 

programs may have compared to current 

STEP grantees or TEAs that have 

existing relationships with their SEAs or 

LEAs. We agree that a modified 

definition of ‘‘established TEA’’ will 

better meet the objectives of the STEP 

program. Accordingly, we are revising 

the final definition of ‘‘established 

TEA’’ to specify some criteria that will 

be part of the definition of ‘‘established 

TEA,’’ as well as optional criteria that 

we may choose from and announce in 

the notice inviting applications. This 

flexibility will permit the Department to 

learn from each competition and apply 

its learning to subsequent competitions 

to better tailor the priorities to the 

program objectives. 

Based on experience with the current 

STEP grants, we agree that a prior 

relationship with an SEA or LEA is a 

strong predictor of success, and should 

always be one of the criteria for 

classification as an established TEA. 

However, we do not agree that the other 

criteria that the commenters suggested 

should always be used to define an 

‘‘established TEA.’’ First, we believe 

that we should reserve flexibility 

regarding the tribal education code 

criterion because there are so few tribes 

that have developed a tribal education 

code at this time. Second, we do not 

agree that size of staff should be a factor, 

due to the large variations in size among 

tribes and their memberships. Finally, 

we do not agree that we should add a 

tribally defined criterion of capacity, as 

that could allow TEAs to determine 

whether they are established, without 

regard to objective criteria applied to all 

TEAs. 

We believe that experience 

administering Federal grants and 

education programs, such as a tribal 

preschool program, provides a strong 

foundation for tribal capacity and 

should be retained as optional criteria. 

Thus, we are revising the definition of 

‘‘established TEA’’ accordingly. 

With respect to the comment 

requesting technical assistance, we plan 

to provide technical assistance for the 

STEP competition. 

Changes: We have revised the 

definition of ‘‘established TEA’’ to mean 

a TEA that has previously received a 

STEP grant, or a TEA that has a 

preexisting relationship with an SEA or 

LEA as evidenced by a written 

agreement between the TEA and SEA or 

LEA, and meets one or more of the 

following criteria (to be determined 

annually): Has an existing tribal 

education code, has administered at 

least one education program within the 

past five years, or has administered at 

least one Federal, State, local, or private 

grant within the past five years. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: In further reviewing 

proposed priority 2, we have decided 

that it is unnecessary to state in the 

priority that a TEA with limited 

experience includes a TEA that has not 

received a previous STEP grant. This is 

already part of the definition of the term 

‘‘TEA with limited experience.’’ 

Changes: We have revised priority 2 

by deleting the language ‘‘a TEA that 

has not received a previous STEP 

grant.’’ 

Requirements 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

Department to clarify the functions to be 

performed by the TEA. The commenter 

noted that, under the ESEA Formula 

Grant Programs section of the proposed 

requirements, STEP projects must 

include at least one SEA-administered 

ESEA formula grant program, while 

paragraph (b) of that section provides 

TEAs with flexibility to perform SEA- or 

LEA-type functions under the chosen 

ESEA program. 

Discussion: Generally, applicants can 

choose between SEA-type and LEA-type 

functions. We included the requirement 

that at least one SEA-administered 

program (e.g., title I, title II, School 

Improvement Grants, etc.) be included 

in a project because we have expanded 

the scope of STEP to permit the 

incorporation of the ESEA title VII 

formula grants. Title VII formula grants 

are direct grants to LEAs; SEAs are not 

involved at all with these grants. If a 

project only included title VII grants, 

there would be no State role. Therefore, 

if a TEA and LEA choose to include a 

title VII program in the STEP project, 

the project must also include a Stateadministered ESEA formula grant 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11553 

program. However, for that Stateadministered program, the TEA can still 

choose LEA-type or SEA-type functions. 

Changes: We have added a note 

following the definition of ‘‘ESEA 

formula grant program’’ stating that if 

applicants choose to include a title VII 

program in their STEP project, they 

must also include at least one Stateadministered program, but that 

applicants can still choose whether to 

perform SEA- or LEA-type functions for 

those State-administered programs. 

Comment: Two commenters 

supported our inclusion of title VII in 

the types of formula grant programs that 

can be part of STEP projects. One 

commenter stated that both TEAs and 

LEAs are eligible for title VII formula 

grants, and the STEP grant would allow 

these two entities to make a local 

decision regarding the title VII grant 

administration. Another commenter 

suggested that the title VII grant 

program should be amended to include 

TEA administrative functions to ensure 

that tribal students are served properly. 

Discussion: We agree that including 

title VII grants in STEP projects 

provides greater flexibility for TEAs. 

However, tribes are not eligible for title 

VII formula grants in the same way as 

LEAs; under the statute, tribes are 

eligible to apply for the formula grants 

only if they apply in lieu of the LEA in 

accordance with the requirements in 

section 7112 of the ESEA. Tribes and 

their TEAs cannot compete with LEAs 

for a title VII grant. The STEP program 

does not change the title VII formula 

program or its statutory requirements in 

any way. We cannot amend the statute 

through this regulatory process. 

However, we agree that inclusion of the 

title VII formula grant in a STEP project 

would facilitate a local discussion 

regarding the appropriate use of the title 

VII funds to improve outcomes for 

American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/ 

AN) youth, regardless of which entity— 

tribe, TEA, or LEA—is the title VII 

grantee. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the proposed preliminary agreement 

requirements related to data sharing. 

However, in this context, two 

commenters argued that it is difficult for 

TEAs to access education records, and 

that this hampers tribes’ ability to 

provide support services and to make 

data-based decisions. These commenters 

suggested that the Department seek 

amendments to the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 

(Section 444 of the General Education 

Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g)) that 

would include TEAs among the 

educational agencies, authorities, and 

officials to whom protected student 

records and information may be 

released without the prior written 

consent of parents or students. In 

addition, one commenter suggested that 

we designate TEAs as authorized 

representatives of the Secretary of 

Education, and make technical 

assistance available to assist TEAs in the 

protection of education records. 

Another commenter requested a 

streamlined process for STEP grantees 

to access student records. 

Discussion: Although we appreciate 

the commenters’ concerns, the 

provisions of FERPA are both statutory 

and regulatory and beyond the scope of 

this regulatory action. Further, we 

cannot designate an entity as an 

authorized representative of the 

Secretary of Education unless that entity 

performs an audit or evaluation function 

for which the Secretary is responsible 

(20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(C) and (b)(3) and 

34 CFR 99.35(a)(1)). The Department 

cannot use this FERPA exception to 

consent in order to permit entities to 

obtain access to education records to 

conduct evaluations that SEAs or LEAs 

are responsible for conducting. 

We understand from our work with 

the current STEP grantees that access to 

student data is important to tribes and 

their TEAs, as well as to the success of 

STEP projects. We also understand that 

many entities misunderstand FERPA 

requirements. We have provided 

technical assistance to the current STEP 

grantees, through webinars and 

individual assistance from our Family 

Policy Compliance Office, and will 

continue to do so for future STEP 

grantees. We believe that involvement 

by all parties—TEA, SEA, and LEA—in 

such technical assistance opportunities 

will lead to mutually satisfactory 

outcomes. We also agree that stronger 

provisions regarding data sharing in the 

STEP agreements between the TEA, 

SEA, and LEA would be helpful. 

Accordingly, we are revising the 

preliminary agreement requirements in 

paragraph (f)(1) to require the parties to 

acknowledge the importance of student 

data to the project’s success. In addition, 

in paragraph (f)(1), we are specifying 

that, if the project design requires data 

sharing, the progress of the parties 

towards mutual data access may be a 

factor in determining whether a project 

is making substantial progress towards 

meeting its objectives, for purposes of 

continuation awards. 

In response to the commenters’ 

concerns, we note that one option under 

which TEAs may access student 

education records without written 

consent is for the SEA or LEA to 

designate the TEA as an authorized 

representative for purposes of 

evaluating one or more ESEA formula 

grant programs that the SEA or LEA is 

responsible for evaluating. Because this 

designation requires the parties to enter 

a separate written agreement that 

complies with the FERPA regulations 

(see 34 CFR 99.35(a)(3)), it can take time 

to finalize. Therefore, such a 

designation would not have to be 

completed as part of the preliminary 

STEP agreement required as part of the 

grant application, but must be included 

in or attached to the final agreement. In 

paragraph (f)(2) we are requiring that 

parties make their best efforts to 

participate in training regarding FERPA 

and to include in or attach to the final 

agreement the terms relating to data 

sharing that are consistent with FERPA. 

In paragraph (f) of the Preliminary 

Agreement requirement, we 

purposefully use the term data-sharing 

to emphasize that data sharing should 

be mutual, rather than one-directional, 

in order to account for all students. We 

note that many tribes operate BIEfunded schools, and AI/AN students 

transfer frequently between such 

schools and public schools. 

Accordingly, in any final agreement on 

terms relating to data sharing, a BIE 

school could agree to provide timely 

information to the TEA and the LEA 

concerning students who transfer to the 

public school or who drop out of the 

BIE school. 

Changes: We have revised the 

language in paragraph (f) of the 

Preliminary Agreement requirement to 

require the parties to: acknowledge that 

access to student data is important for 

TEA capacity building; and commit to 

making best efforts to participate in 

trainings and technical assistance and 

reach agreement on data sharing that is 

consistent with FERPA if it is required 

by the project design. This replaces the 

language that was in proposed 

paragraph (h) of the Preliminary 

Agreement requirement. 

Comment: One commenter raised 

concern about requiring TEAs to enter a 

partnership with local public schools 

and SEAs, because tribes have 

historically struggled with these 

agencies. 

Discussion: We acknowledge the 

historical struggle between tribes, SEAs, 

and LEAs. One of the major purposes of 

the STEP program is to increase 

collaboration between TEAs, SEAs, and 

LEAs, and, thus, the Department 

believes it is important to include these 

entities in the partnership. The 

preliminary and final agreements must 

therefore be signed by these parties. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
11554 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Discussion: Because STEP grants are 

subject to the Indian hiring preference 

in section 7(b) of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education 

Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93–638) to the 

extent that they benefit primarily 

members of federally recognized tribes, 

we are adding a reference to this 

provision under the Requirements 

section. 

Changes: We have added the statutory 

hiring preference requirements, entitled 

ISDEAA Hiring Preference, under the 

Requirements section of this notice. 

Definitions 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested changes to the definition of 

‘‘established TEA.’’ Those comments 

and corresponding changes are 

discussed in the Priorities part of the 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

section of this document. 

Final Priorities 

Final Priority 1—Established TEAs 

To meet this priority, a TEA must be 

an established TEA. 

Final Priority 2—TEAs with Limited 

Prior Experience 

To meet this priority, a TEA with 

limited prior experience is, for any 

STEP competition, a TEA that does not 

meet the definition of an ‘‘established 

TEA.’’ 

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 Requirements 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

establishes 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. 

Eligible Applicant 

(a) A TEA that is from an eligible 

Indian tribe and is authorized by its 

tribe to administer this program; or 

(b) A consortium of such TEAs. 

Schools and ESEA Formula Grant 

Programs Included in Project 

(a) Schools. (1) Projects must include 

at least two eligible schools, at least one 

of which must be a public school. 

(2) All schools included in the project 

must receive services or funds for the 

specific ESEA formula grant program(s) 

selected by the applicant. 

(3) For projects that include one or 

more tribally controlled schools— 

(i) The applicant TEA must include in 

its application evidence that it 

submitted a copy of the application to 

BIE; and 

(ii) If the proposed project includes 

SEA-type functions with regard to the 

tribally controlled school, the TEA may 

be required by BIE to enter into an 

agreement with BIE, to be submitted to 

the Department at the same time as the 

final agreement. 

(b) ESEA Formula Grant Programs. 

Projects must include at least one ESEA 

formula grant program that is Stateadministered. 

Preliminary Agreement: An applicant 

must submit with its application for 

funding a signed preliminary agreement 

among the TEA, SEA, and LEA. Letters 

of support from an SEA or LEA will not 

meet this requirement and will not be 

accepted as a substitute. 

The preliminary agreement must 

include: 

(a) An explanation of how the parties 

will work collaboratively to: 

(1) Administer selected ESEA formula 

grant programs in eligible schools; and 

(2) Cooperate on administering other 

educational programs or services as 

agreed to by the parties. 

(b) The primary ESEA formula grant 

program(s) for which the TEA will 

assume SEA-type or LEA-type 

administrative functions; 

(c) A description of the primary SEAtype or LEA-type administrative 

functions that the TEA will assume; 

(d) The training and other activities 

that the SEA or LEA, as appropriate, 

will provide for the TEA to gain the 

knowledge and skills needed to 

administer ESEA formula programs; 

(e) The assistance that the TEA will 

provide to the SEA or LEA, as 

appropriate, to facilitate the project, 

such as cultural competence training; 

(f) A statement concerning student 

data that— 

(1) Acknowledges that access by the 

TEA to data on students who are tribal 

members is important to building the 

capacity of the TEA, and, depending on 

the project design, may be one of the 

factors the Secretary considers in 

determining whether a grantee has made 

substantial progress in achieving the 

goals and objectives of the project for 

the purpose of making continuation 

awards; and 

(2) Commits the parties to making 

their best efforts to: 

(i) Participate in training and 

technical assistance, provided by or 

through the Department, on the 

requirements of section 444 of the 

General Education Provisions Act 

(commonly referred to as the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or 

FERPA) and on the possible ways in 

which the TEA could be provided 

access to tribal student data consistent 

with FERPA; and 

(ii) Reach agreement on and include 

as part of the Final Agreement to be 

submitted during year 1 of the grant, a 

provision on data sharing that is 

consistent with FERPA, if data sharing 

is required by the project design; 

(g) The names of at least one LEA and 

two or more eligible schools, at least one 

of which must be a public school, that 

are expected to participate in the 

project; 

(h) An explanation of how the STEP 

funds will be used to build on existing 

activities or add new activities rather 

than replace tribal or other funds; and 

(i) Signatures of the authorized 

representatives of the TEA, SEA, 

participating LEA(s), and any BIEfunded tribally controlled school that is 

included in the project. 

Final Agreement: Each grantee must 

submit to the Department a final 

agreement by the date, in year 1 of the 

grant, to be established by the 

Department in the notice inviting 

applications. The final agreement must 

contain: 

(a) All of the elements from the 

preliminary agreement, in final form; 

(b) A timetable for accomplishing 

each of the objectives and activities that 

the parties will undertake; 

(c) Goals of the project and 

measureable objectives towards 

reaching the goals; and 

(d) The actions that the parties will 

take to sustain the relationships and 

activities established in the agreement 

after the project ends. 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11555 

ISDEAA Hiring Preference 

(a) Awards that are primarily for the 

benefit of Indians are subject to the 

provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act (P.L. 93–638). That 

section requires that, to the greatest 

extent feasible, a grantee— 

(1) Give to Indians preferences and 

opportunities for training and 

employment in connection with the 

administration of the grant; and 

(2) Give to Indian organizations and to 

Indian-owned economic enterprises, as 

defined in section 3 of the Indian 

Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 

1452(e)), preference in the award of 

contracts in connection with the 

administration of the grant. 

(b) For purposes of this section, an 

Indian is a member of any federally 

recognized Indian tribe. 

Final Definitions 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

establishes the following definitions for 

this program. We may apply one or 

more of these definitions in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

Cultural competency means the use of 

culturally responsive education that 

takes into account a student’s own 

cultural experiences, creates 

connections between home and school 

experiences, and uses the cultural 

knowledge, prior experiences, and 

learning styles of diverse students to 

make learning more appropriate and 

effective. 

Eligible Indian tribe means a federally 

recognized or a State-recognized tribe. 

Eligible school means a school that is 

included in the applicant’s preliminary 

and final agreements, and that is: 

(a) A public school, including a 

public charter school, or 

(b) A BIE-funded tribally controlled 

school. 

Established TEA means a TEA that: 

(a) Previously received a STEP grant, 

or 

(b) Has an existing prior relationship 

with an SEA or LEA as evidenced by a 

prior written agreement between the 

TEA and SEA or LEA, and meets one or 

more of the following criteria, as 

specified by the Secretary in a notice 

inviting applications published in the 

Federal Register: 

(i) Has an existing tribal education 

code; 

(ii) Has administered at least one 

education program (for example, a 

tribally operated preschool or 

afterschool program) within the past 

five years; or 

(iii) Has administered at least one 

Federal, State, local, or private grant 

within the past five years. 

Note: For each competition, the Secretary 

will publish in the Federal Register the 

minimum number of criteria from this list 

(such as two out of three), or the specific 

criteria from this list that an established TEA 

must meet. 

ESEA formula grant program means 

one of the following programs 

authorized under the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), for which SEAs or 

LEAs receive formula funding: 

(a) Improving Academic Achievement 

of the Disadvantaged (title I, part A); 

(b) School Improvement Grants 

(section 1003(g)); 

(c) Migrant Education (title I, part C); 

(d) Neglected and Delinquent State 

Grants (title I, part D); 

(e) Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants (title II, part A); 

(f) English Learner Education State 

Grants (title III, part A); 

(g) 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers (title IV, part B); and 

(h) Indian Education Formula Grants 

(title VII, part A). 

Note: State-administered ESEA formula 

grant programs are the programs identified in 

paragraphs (a)-(g) of the definition of ESEA 

formula grant program. If an applicant 

chooses the Indian Education Formula Grants 

program (title VII, part A), which makes 

direct grants to LEAs, it must also choose at 

least one State-administered program listed 

in (a)-(g), as required by paragraph (b) of the 

Schools and ESEA Formula Grant Programs 

Included in Project requirement. Applicants 

can still choose SEA- or LEA-type functions 

for the State-administered ESEA formula 

grant. 

LEA-type function means the type of 

activity that LEAs typically conduct, 

such as direct provision of educational 

services to students, grant 

implementation, school district 

curriculum development, staff 

professional development pursuant to 

State guidelines, and data submissions. 

SEA-type function means the type of 

activity that SEAs typically conduct, 

such as overall education policy 

development, supervision and 

monitoring of school districts, provision 

of technical assistance to districts, 

statewide curriculum development, 

collecting and analyzing performance 

data, and evaluating programs. 

Tribal educational agency (TEA) 

means the agency, department, or 

instrumentality of an eligible Indian 

tribe that is primarily responsible for 

supporting tribal students’ elementary 

and secondary education, which may 

include early learning. 

Final Selection Criteria 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

establishes the following selection 

criteria for evaluating an application 

under this program. In any year in 

which this program is in effect, we may 

apply one or more of these criteria or 

sub-criteria, any of the selection criteria 

in 34 CFR 75.210, or any combination 

of these. In the notice inviting 

applications or the application package 

or both, we will announce the 

maximum possible points assigned to 

each criterion. 

(a) Need for project. The Assistant 

Secretary considers the extent to which 

the goals and objectives in the 

preliminary agreement, including the 

TEA capacity-building activities, 

address identified educational needs of 

the Indian students to be served. 

(b) Quality of the project design. The 

Assistant Secretary considers one or 

more of the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project would recognize and support 

tribal sovereignty. 

(2) The extent to which the 

preliminary agreement defines goals, 

objectives, and outcomes of the 

proposed project that are likely to be 

achieved by the end of the project 

period. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

project would build relationships and 

better communication among the TEA, 

SEA, and LEA, as well as families and 

communities, to the benefit of Indian 

students in the selected schools, 

including by enhancing the cultural 

competency of SEA and LEA staff. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project would enhance the capacity of 

the TEA to administer ESEA formula 

grants during the grant period and 

beyond. 

(c) Adequacy of resources. The 

Assistant Secretary considers the extent 

to which: 

(1) The TEA has established, prior to 

developing the preliminary agreement, a 

relationship with either the SEA or an 

LEA that will enhance the likelihood of 

the project’s success; and 

(2) The use of STEP grant funds 

supports the capacity-building activities 

that are needed to administer ESEA 

formula grants. 

(d) Quality of project personnel. The 

Assistant Secretary considers the extent 

to which the proposed project director 

has experience in education and in 

administering Federal grants. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
11556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, we will 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 these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria 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 the 

analysis that follows, 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. 

We believe that the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria would not impose significant 

costs on eligible TEAs that receive 

assistance through the STEP program. 

We also believe that the benefits of 

implementing the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria outweigh any associated costs. 

We believe that the costs imposed on 

applicants would be limited to costs 

associated with developing 

applications, including developing 

partnerships with SEAs and LEAs, and 

that the benefits of creating a 

partnership that is likely to be sustained 

after the end of the project period would 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. The costs of carrying out 

activities proposed in STEP applications 

would be paid for with program funds. 

Thus, the costs of implementation 

would not be a burden for any eligible 

applicants, including small entities. We 

also note that program participation is 

voluntary. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79, except that federally recognized 

Indian tribes are not subject to those 

rules. 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 

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: February 26, 2015. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04492 Filed 3–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES