```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32209-32215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13671]

[[Page 32209]]

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

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 32210]]

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

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 private-sector 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

[[Page 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 low-income 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 college- and 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 competency-based 
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

[[Page 32212]]

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 college- and 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

[[Page 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 low-income 
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 pre-application 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 seven-page 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

[[Page 32214]]

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

[[Page 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
```