[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42305-42311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15221]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2019-OESE-0142]
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Indian Education Discretionary Grants Programs--Native
American Language (NAL@ED) 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
under the NAL@ED program, CFDA number 84.415B. The Assistant Secretary
may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2020 and later
years. We take this action to support Native language revitalization
and instruction through the development and expansion of high-quality
Native language programs.
DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are effective August 13, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya Tullos, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
[[Page 42306]]
Room 3W234, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6037. Email:
[email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purposes of this program are to (1) support
schools that use Native American and Alaska Native languages as the
primary language of instruction; (2) maintain, protect, and promote the
rights and freedom of Native Americans and Alaska Natives to use,
practice, maintain, and revitalize their languages, as envisioned in
the Native American Languages Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 2901, et seq.);
and (3) support the Nation's First Peoples' efforts to maintain and
revitalize their languages and cultures, and to improve educational
opportunities and student outcomes within Native American and Alaska
Native communities.
Program Authority: Section 6133 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7453).
Applicable Program Regulations: We published a notice of proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) for
this program in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020, (85 FR
11323). That notice contained background information and our reasons
for proposing the particular priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
There are four substantive differences and three technical changes
between the NPP and this notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. Two substantive differences are
specific to an application requirement relating to Tribal consultation;
one relates to the application requirement to use ESEA title VI formula
grant funds to support the project after the grant period has ended,
and the related priority; and the final difference relates to the
application requirement concerning pre- and post-assessments. We fully
explain these changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section
elsewhere in this notice.
In the NPP we solicited the public's feedback on how to interpret
the statutory requirement to ensure that a diversity of languages is
supported by this program and the congressional emphasis in the
Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2020, regarding the importance of geographical
diversity in grantees under this program. The Department received no
public comment on these topics; therefore, the Department finalizes the
proposed program requirements that, in any competition year, it will
fund not more than one project that uses the same Native American
language and will not exclusively fund applicants from a single State,
assuming there are enough high-quality applications. In addition to the
final program requirement regarding diversity of languages, the
Department can use two of the final priorities--one to establish and
maintain new language programs, and a second to support and expand
existing programs--to fund separate slates of applicants; doing so
could increase the likelihood of funding applicants that support Native
languages not previously funded under the NAL@ED program.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, one party
submitted substantive comments that addressed multiple proposed
application requirements.
We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not
address comments that raised concerns not directly related to the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.
Proposed Application Requirement 2--Memorandum of Agreement
Comment: The commenter requested that the Department reduce the
amount of time that a signed memorandum of agreement be in place prior
to submitting an application, to less than four months.
Discussion: The proposed application requirement stated that the
memorandum of agreement must be signed no earlier than four months
prior to the date of submission of the application. We intended by this
to require that the memorandum of agreement not be more than four
months old. We believe that the commenter interpreted the proposed
application requirement to require that the memorandum of agreement be
signed more than four months prior to the application deadline. We
agree that the language is not clear, and are revising the requirement
to clarify our intent.
Change: We have revised the application requirement to provide that
the memorandum of agreement must be signed no more than four months
prior to the application deadline.
Proposed Application Requirement 3--Local Educational Agency (LEA)
Consultation With Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations
Comment: The commenter requested that the Department expand Tribal
consultation requirements by requiring that--(1) non-Native applicants
engage in Tribal consultation prior to applying; (2) all applicants
submit a letter of support from a Tribe to signify Tribal consultation
has been conducted; and (3) grantees conduct ongoing Tribal
consultation throughout the grant period.
Discussion: In the NPP, proposed Application Requirement 3 only
applied to LEAs that are subject to the consultation requirements of
section 8538 of the ESEA. The Department agrees, however, with the
recommendation that non-Tribal eligible entities be required to engage
meaningfully with Tribes, both as a way of ensuring involvement of
local Tribes, and in recognition of Tribal sovereignty. Therefore, we
are expanding the scope of this application requirement to include all
non-Tribal entities.
The Department also agrees with the commenter that providing
documented evidence of Tribal support is important. To minimize the
burden on applicants, in these final requirements we provide non-Tribal
applicants with the option of providing evidence of either Tribal
engagement or a letter of support from Tribes or Tribal organizations.
This change subsequently prompted review of the proposed definition of
Indian organizations (Tribal organizations). As the definition states,
we would not consider a Tribal organization to be part of an
institution of higher education (IHE), and we would not accept a letter
from an IHE as evidence of engagement between an applicant and a Tribe
or Tribal organization. Similarly, we would not accept a letter from a
Tribal college or university (TCU) as evidence of engagement for the
purposes of this application requirement.
The Department also agrees that ongoing Tribal engagement
throughout the project period is important, given that a purpose of the
NAL@ED program is to support Native culture and language
revitalization. Tribes should be meaningfully involved in project
development as well as in the project's implementation and continuous
improvement efforts. The Memorandum of Agreement described in
Application Requirement 2 is a sufficient means of ensuring meaningful,
ongoing
[[Page 42307]]
involvement throughout the project period.
Changes: We have revised Application Requirement 3 to require all
applicants that are not Tribes to engage with local Tribe(s) or a local
Tribal organization prior to submitting an application, and to submit
evidence of either Tribal engagement or a letter of support from the
Tribe(s) or Tribal organization(s). In addition, we have revised the
definition of ``Indian organization (or Tribal organization)'' to
clarify that a TCU is not considered to be an Indian organization.
Proposed Application Requirement 4--Support Project Sustainability With
Title VI Indian Education Formula Grant Funds
Comment: The commenter strongly opposed requiring grantees that
also receive title VI funds to allocate a portion or all of their title
VI funds to support sustaining the Native language program after the
NAL@ED grant project period has ended. The commenter argued that this
requirement would limit Tribal sovereignty and negatively affect
established programs using title VI funds, which are providing crucial
services for Native students, such as tutoring or college counseling.
Discussion: Our intent in proposing this application requirement
was to provide a simple method of sustainability for these language
projects following completion of the project period, and to emphasize
the title VI formula grant program's purpose of addressing the unique
academic and cultural needs of students. Formula grantees often
struggle with addressing these needs, as reflected in a 2019 Department
study, Implementation of the Title VI Indian Education Formula Grants
Program,\1\ that surveyed 92 percent of the 1,300 FY 2018 formula
grantees. Of those surveyed, about 50 percent of grantees reported
challenges with the supply of school staff knowledgeable about American
Indian or Alaska Native languages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation
and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service,
Implementation of the Title VI Indian Education Formula Grants
Program, Volume I: Final Report. Washington, DC, 2019. Accessed May
20, 2020 at: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-vi/title-vi-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, to address the commenter's concerns, in keeping with our
respect for Tribal sovereignty, and to provide flexibility for
grantees, we are removing this application requirement, while retaining
it as a priority (see Priority 3). As a priority, it may, for example,
be used to award competitive preference points. In order to encourage
the use of such funds for program sustainability, and to provide
greater clarity, we are structuring the priority to address different
percentages of title VI formula grant funds that an applicant might
direct to sustainability efforts, in increments of 10 percent. We will
specify in a notice inviting applications the applicable percentages
for a particular competition.
Change: We have removed this application requirement. In addition,
we have revised the language in Priority 3 to specify percentages of
ESEA title VI funding that would be dedicated to sustaining the
project.
Other Issues
Comments: None.
Discussion: After further review of the proposed priorities, we
have made a technical change. In Proposed Priority 2--Expand and
Improve Existing Native American Language Programs, we state that the
program has to be ``currently active.'' However, this would mean that
we would not consider a program that has been dormant for one or two
years. Therefore, we are revising the priority to ensure that such
programs can be considered under Priority 2.
Changes: We are revising this section of Priority 2 to say ``within
the past three years'' so that it allows for consideration of programs
not active within the last one to two years.
Comments: None.
Discussion: After further review of the proposed priorities, we
have made a technical change. In Proposed Priority 4--Preference for
Indian Applicants, we used the term ``Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)
school.'' We are revising this term to clarify that it includes both
BIE schools and Tribally-operated schools that are funded by the BIE.
Changes: We have removed references to the term ``BIE school'' and
replaced them with the term ``BIE-funded'' school in Priority 4.
Comments: None.
Discussion: After further review of the proposed application
requirements, we have made one additional change. In Proposed
Application Requirement 1, regarding general requirements, the
reference to pre- and post-assessments was meant to elicit from the
applicant whether or not an assessment, as required under proposed
Program Requirement 1, is already available to use for the Native
language proposed, and if not, whether these grant funds will be used
to support development of the required assessment. However, the
language proposed in the NPP might be misinterpreted to mean that a
grantee has the option to not conduct Native language pre- and post-
assessments.
Changes: We have revised the language in Application Requirement 1
to require applicants to specify the percentage of grant funds that
would be used to develop a Native language assessment.
Final Priorities
Priority 1--Develop and Maintain New Native American Language Programs
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop and
maintain a Native American language instructional program that--
(a) Will support Native American language education and development
for Native American students, as well as provide professional
development for teachers and, as appropriate, staff and administrators,
to strengthen the overall language and academic goals of the school or
schools that will be served by the project;
(b) Will take place in a school; and
(c) Does not augment or replace a program of identical scope that
was active within the last three years at the school(s) to be served.
Priority 2--Expand and Improve Existing Native American Language
Programs
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to improve and
expand a Native American language instructional program that--
(a) Will improve and expand Native American language education and
development for Native American students, as well as provide
professional development for teachers and, as appropriate, staff and
administrators, to strengthen the overall language and academic goals
of the school or schools that will be served by the project;
(b) Will continue to take place in a school; and
(c) Within the past three years has been offered at the school(s)
to be served.
Priority 3--Support Project Sustainability With Title VI Indian
Education Formula Grant Funds
To meet this priority, an applicant or a partner must receive, or
be eligible to receive, a formula grant under title VI of the ESEA, and
must commit to use all or part of that formula grant to help sustain
this project after the conclusion of the grant period. To meet this
priority, an applicant must include in its application--
(a) A statement that indicates the school year in which the entity
will begin using title VI formula grant funds to help support this
project;
[[Page 42308]]
(b) The percentage of the title VI grant that will be used for the
project of at least--
(i) 10 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
(ii) 20 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
(iii) 30 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
(iv) 40 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
(v) 50 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
(vi) 60 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
(vii) 70 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
(viii) 80 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
(ix) 90 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant; or
(x) 100 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant; and
(c) The timeline for obtaining parent committee input and approval
of this action, if necessary.
Priority 4--Preference for Indian Applicants
To meet this priority, an application must be submitted by an
Indian Tribe, Indian organization, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-
funded school, or Tribal College or University (TCU) that is eligible
to participate in the NAL@ED program. A consortium of eligible entities
that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and
includes an Indian Tribe, Indian organization, BIE-funded school, or
TCU will also be considered eligible to meet this priority. In order to
be considered a consortium application, the application must include
the consortium agreement, signed by all parties.
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
Application Requirement 1--General Requirements
An applicant must include the following information in its
application:
(a) Students to be served. The number of students to be served by
the project and the grade level(s) of targeted students in the proposed
project.
(b) Pre- and post-assessments. Whether a pre- and post-assessment
of Native American language proficiency is available and, if not, the
percentage of grant funds that will be used for developing such
assessment.
(c) Program description. A description of how the eligible entity
will support Native American language education and development, and
provide professional development for staff, in order to strengthen the
overall language and academic goals of the school(s) that will be
served by the project; ensure the implementation of rigorous academic
content that prepares all students for college and career; and ensure
that students' progress toward meeting high-level fluency goals in the
Native American language.
Application Requirement 2--Memorandum of Agreement
Any applicant that proposes to work with a partner to carry out the
proposed project must include a signed and dated memorandum of
agreement that describes the roles and responsibilities of each partner
to participate in the grant, including--
(a) A description of how each partner will implement the project
according to the timelines described in the grant application;
(b) The roles and responsibilities of each partner related to
ensuring the data necessary to report on the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) indicators; and
(c) The roles and responsibilities of each partner related to
ensuring that Native American language instructors can be recruited,
retained, and trained, as appropriate, in a timely manner.
This memorandum of agreement must be signed no more than four
months prior to the application deadline (i.e., the agreement must be
signed within the four months prior to the application deadline).
Application Requirement 3--Applicant Engagement With Indian Tribes or
Tribal Organizations
All non-Tribal applicants must engage with appropriate officials
from Tribe(s) located in the area served by the project, or with a
local Tribal organization prior to submission of an application. The
engagement must provide for the opportunity for officials from Tribes
or Tribal organizations to meaningfully and substantively contribute to
the application. Non-Tribal applicants must submit evidence of either
Tribal engagement or a letter of support from one or more Tribes or
Tribal organizations. This evidence can be part of the memorandum of
agreement required by Application Requirement 2 or can be uploaded as a
separate attachment.
Note: If an applicant is an affected LEA that is subject to ESEA
section 8538, then the LEA is already required to consult with
appropriate officials from Tribe(s) or Tribal organizations approved
by the Tribes located in the area served by the LEA prior to its
submission of an application, on the contents of the application as
required under ESEA section 8538. Affected LEAs are those that have
50 percent or more of their student enrollment made up of Native
American students; or received an Indian education formula grant
under title VI of the ESEA in the previous fiscal year that exceeds
$40,000. (ESEA sec. 8538)
Program Requirement 1--Native American Language Proficiency Assessment
Grantees must administer pre- and post-assessments of Native
American language proficiency to participating students. This Native
American language assessment may be any relevant tool that measures
student Native American language proficiency, such as oral, written or
project-based assessments, and formative or summative assessments.
Program Requirement 2--Diversity of Languages
To ensure a diversity of languages as required by statute, the
Department will not fund more than one project in any competition year
that proposes to use the same Native American language, assuming there
are enough high-quality applications. In the event of a lack of high-
quality applications in one competition year, the Department may choose
to fund more than one project with the same Native American language.
[[Page 42309]]
Program Requirement 3--Geographic Distribution
To ensure geographic diversity, assuming there are enough high-
quality applications, the Department will not exclusively fund projects
that all propose to serve students in the same State in any competition
year. In the event of a lack of high-quality applications in one
competition year, the Department may choose to fund only applications
that propose to provide services in one State.
Statutory Program Requirement--ISDEAA Statutory Hiring Preference: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This program requirement is directly from section 7(b) of
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA)
(Pub. L. 93-638).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 (ISDEAA) (Pub. 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. (25 U.S.C. 5307(b))
(b) For purposes of the ISDEAA statutory hiring preference only, an
Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe.
Final Definitions
We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which
this program is in effect.
Indian organization (or Tribal organization) means an organization
that--
(1) Is legally established--
(i) By Tribal or inter-Tribal charter or in accordance with State
or Tribal law; and
(ii) With appropriate constitution, bylaws, or articles of
incorporation;
(2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of
Indians;
(3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is
Indian;
(4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction
of or by charter from the governing body of that reservation;
(5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the
direct control of, any institution of higher education or TCU; and
(6) Is not an agency of State or local government.
Tribe means either a federally recognized Tribe or a State-
recognized Tribe.
Statutory Definitions: The following definitions are from statutes
governing the NAL@ED program. We have indicated in parentheses the
specific statutory citation for each of these definitions.
Native American means:
(1) ``Indian'' as defined in section 6151(3) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C.
7491(3)), which includes individuals who are Alaska Natives and members
of federally recognized or State recognized Tribes;
(2) Native Hawaiian; or
(3) Native American Pacific Islander. (ESEA secs. 6151(3) and
8101(34))
Native American language means the historical, traditional
languages spoken by Native Americans. (ESEA sec. 8101(34))
Tribal college or university means an institution that--
(1) Qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled Colleges
and Universities Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) or
the Navajo Community College Act (25 U.S.C. 640a note); or
(2) Is cited in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant
Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note). (ESEA sec. 6133 and section 316
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1059c))
Final Selection Criteria
(a) Quality of the project design. The Secretary considers the
quality of the design of the proposed project.
In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project,
the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the project design will ensure that
students' progress toward grade-level and developmentally appropriate
fluency in the Native American language.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project will incorporate
parent engagement and participation in Native American language
instruction.
(3) The quality of the approach to developing and administering
pre- and post-assessments of student Native American language
proficiency, including consultation with individuals with assessment
expertise, as needed.
(b) Quality of project services. The Secretary considers the
quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In
determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(1) The quality of the plan for supporting grade-level and
developmentally appropriate instruction in a Native American language
by providing instruction of or through the Native American language.
(2) The extent to which the project will provide professional
development for teachers and, as appropriate, staff and administrators
to strengthen the overall language proficiency and academic goals of
the school(s) that will be served by the project, including cultural
competence training for all staff in the school(s).
(3) The extent to which the percentage of the school day that
instruction will be provided in the Native American language is
ambitious and is reasonable for the grade level and population served.
(c) Quality of project personnel. The Secretary considers the
quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In
determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers
the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
In addition, the Secretary considers the extent to which teachers
of the Native American language who are identified as staff for this
project have teaching experience and are fluent in the Native American
language.
(d) Adequacy of resources. The Secretary considers the adequacy of
resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of
resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent
to which the applicant or a partner has experience in operating a
Native American language program.
Note: This document 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 invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an
[[Page 42310]]
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.
OMB has determined that this final regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new rule that the Department
proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and that
imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two
deregulatory actions. For FY 2020, any new incremental costs associated
with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of
existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because this regulatory
action is not significant, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do
not apply.
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 justify their 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 the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with these 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 have determined that these final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria will impose minimal costs on
eligible applicants. Program participation is voluntary, and the costs
imposed on applicants by these final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria are limited to paperwork burden
related to preparing an application. The potential benefits of
implementing the programs--for example, establishing partnerships among
parties with mutual interests in developing Native language programs,
and planning concrete strategies for supporting Native language
revitalization--will outweigh any costs incurred by applicants, and the
costs of carrying out activities associated with the application will
be paid for with program funds. For these reasons, we have determined
that the costs of implementation will be minimal for eligible
applicants, including small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides 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.
The final program priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria contain information collection requirements (ICR)
for the program application package. As a result of the revisions to
these sections, we are submitting the grant application package with
OMB control number 1810-0731 for a reinstatement with change. In Table
1 below, we assume 50 applicants each spend 30 hours preparing their
applications.
Table 1--NAL@ED Grants Program Information Collection Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control No. current Current burden Proposed burden Proposed action
burden (total hours) Expiration (total hours) (total hours) under final rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1810-0731.................. July 31, 2023............. 1,500 1,500 Reinstatement with
change of 1810-
0731.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42311]]
If your comments relate to the ICR for these final regulations,
please specify the Docket ID number and indicate ``Information
Collection Comments'' on the top of your comments.
Written requests for information or comments, submitted by postal
mail or delivery, related to the information collection requirements
should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection
Clearance Program, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW,
Room 9086, Washington, DC 20202.
Intergovernmental Review
This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive
intergovernmental review in order to make awards by the end of FY 2020.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at: www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of 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.
Frank T. Brogan,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2020-15221 Filed 7-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P