[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72600-72605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28939]
[[Page 72600]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
Proposed Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions--Charter
Schools Program (CSP) Grants for National Leadership Activities
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CFDA Number: 84.282N.
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes priorities, requirements, and definitions for CSP Grants for
National Leadership Activities and may use these priorities,
requirements, and definitions for a competition in fiscal year (FY)
2013 and later years. The Assistant Deputy Secretary is taking this
action to ensure that projects funded with CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities address key policy issues currently facing
charter schools and impact stakeholders on a national scale.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 2, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Brian Martin, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W224,
Washington, DC 20202-5970.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following
address: [email protected]. You must include the term ``National
Leadership Activities'' in the subject line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Martin. Telephone: (202) 205-
9085 or by email: [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:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this document. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the final priorities, requirements, and definitions, we urge
you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement, or
definition that each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these
proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. Please let us know
of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase
potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice in room 4W224, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record. If you want to schedule an appointment for
this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the CSP is to increase national
understanding of the charter school model by--
(1) Providing financial assistance for the planning, program
design, and initial implementation of charter schools;
(2) Evaluating the effects of charter schools, including the
effects on students, student achievement, student growth, staff, and
parents;
(3) Expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available
to students across the Nation; and
(4) Encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools
for facilities financing in an amount more nearly commensurate to the
amount the States have typically provided for traditional public
schools.
The purpose of the CSP Grants for National Leadership Activities is
to support efforts by eligible entities to improve the quality of
charter schools by providing technical assistance and other types of
support on issues of national significance and scope.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7221-7221i. CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities are authorized under 20 U.S.C. 7221d(a).
Proposed Priortities: This notice contains five proposed
priorities.
Background
The Department most recently conducted competitions for CSP Grants
for National Leadership Activities in FYs 2006 and 2010. In those
competitions, we invited applications for projects designed to improve
stakeholder capacity to support high-quality charter schools but did
not require or give competitive preference to particular types of
projects. As a result, applications submitted under the competition
varied considerably in scope and content.
To ensure that projects funded with CSP Grants for National
Leadership Activities in future years address key policy issues facing
charter schools on a national scale, the Department proposes the
priorities in this notice. These priorities take into consideration the
continuing growth of charter schools across the nation and the
increasing need to support the capacity and oversight of all charter
schools. The priorities also recognize the important role that charter
schools can play in improving educational outcomes for students with
disabilities and English Learners and in creating personalized,
technology-based learning environments for high-need students (as
defined in this notice).
Proposed Priority 1--Improving Efficiency Through Economies of Scale
Background
Traditional public school districts benefit from economies of scale
across multiple aspects of school operations. Compared to charter
schools, traditional public schools tend to have higher student
enrollment, which may result in lower average costs per student for
various activities or a wider variety of available support services.
For example, traditional public school districts can make mass
purchases of supplies, equipment, and non-academic services, including
facilities maintenance, food, data systems, insurance, and
transportation services. These districts can consolidate academic
services across a large number of schools, including services such as
curriculum development and alignment, student assessments, and
professional development for teachers and school leaders. They can
consolidate services for specific student populations, such as students
with disabilities or English Learners. They can provide a range of arts
and athletic opportunities for their students. They have the ability,
through different funding structures, sustained economies of scale, and
historical relationships with colleges, universities, and nonprofit
organizations, to recruit teachers and leaders more broadly, and in a
more structured way, than charter schools.
Charter schools are explicitly designed to have the autonomy to
employ innovative, promising
[[Page 72601]]
approaches to public education. This autonomy, however, can limit
charter schools' ability to take advantage of the economies of scale
available to traditional public school districts, impeding the charter
school sector's ability to improve its performance and scale up high-
quality charter school models.
As the charter school sector continues to grow, there is an
increasing opportunity for charter schools to form consortia to achieve
the benefits of economies of scale and, thus, improve performance and
increase the number of high-quality charter schools nationwide. The
Department proposes this priority to support such efforts.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and
scope that promote shared systems for acquiring goods or services to
achieve efficiencies in the use of time, staff, money, services for
special populations, or other resources for the purpose of creating and
sustaining high-quality charter schools (as defined in this notice).
An applicant addressing this priority is not required to apply as
part of a partnership or consortium, but must include plans for
developing a consortium, or consortia of charter schools that will
share systems for acquiring goods or services. The plans must include
detailed descriptions (including supporting documentation) of the
following:
(1) The activities of the proposed consortium or consortia and
demonstrate how and to what extent the activities will achieve
efficiencies in the use of time, staff, money, services for special
populations, or other areas related to operating high-quality charter
schools;
(2) Proposed members of the consortium or consortia, how the
composition of this consortium or consortia contributes to achieving
efficiencies, the specific activities each member will carry out, and
how specific activities will include entities outside of the network
that the lead applicant currently manages;
(3) How proposed project activities will help create and sustain
high-quality charter schools;
(4) How information about the proposed project's activities will be
disseminated primarily to charter schools as the primary stakeholder
group, and secondarily to other stakeholders, such as charter school
support organizations and authorized public chartering agencies, as
appropriate, at the charter school national level (as defined in this
notice);
(5) How the dissemination strategy will include assembling a
community of practice (as defined in this notice) for the stakeholder
group(s) served; and
(6) The national significance and scope of the proposed project.
Proposed Priority 2--Improving Accountability
Background
While there are many high-performing charter schools across the
nation, charter school performance varies significantly and too many
persistently low-performing charter schools are not held accountable
for their results. (For example, see the January 30, 2013 report from
the Center for Research on Education Outcome's entitled, ``Charter
School Growth and Replication'', which analyzes student performance and
progress data from 25 States, and the District of Columbia, that have
enacted charter school laws.) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://credo.stanford.edu/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite 43 distinct sets of State laws governing charter schools,
and almost 1,000 different entities authorizing charter schools, there
are some common promising practices that provide the degree of
oversight necessary to ensure that charter schools deliver on their
promises. Over the lifespan of a charter school, authorizing practices
will have a direct impact on the quality of the charter school sector.
Authorizers are responsible for conducting rigorous application reviews
to ensure new schools are of a high quality. Once schools are open,
accountability practices for charter schools need to be strengthened
within States. For example, charter school renewal should occur
regularly enough to ensure accountability and provide an opportunity
for amendment of the charter or closure of poor-performing schools.
Authorizers should have clear policies to hold schools accountable more
consistently for meeting their academic, financial, and operational
performance goals, as well as for complying with all applicable laws,
including civil rights laws requiring equal access.
Through the development, refinement, and dissemination of
authorizers' promising practices in areas such as charter school
approval, performance monitoring, charter contract renewal, and charter
school closure, the Department expects authorizers to hold charter
schools more accountable and to increase the number of high-quality
seats available to students. These promising practices will help ensure
that new charter schools have demonstrated that they are positioned to
succeed, poor-performing charter schools are closed, and high-quality
charter schools are replicated and expanded to serve more students.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and
scope that are designed to improve authorized public chartering
agencies' capacity to conduct rigorous application reviews, monitor and
oversee charter schools using data and measurable performance goals,
close underperforming schools, replicate and expand high-performing
schools, maintain a portfolio of high-quality charter schools, and
evaluate and communicate the performance of that portfolio.
Applicants addressing this priority must provide detailed
descriptions (including supporting documentation) of the following:
(1) How the proposed project will improve, within a variety of
communities in one or more States, authorized public chartering
agencies' capacity to:
i. Approve only high-quality charter schools that meet the
standards of a rigorous application process and review;
ii. Monitor and oversee charter schools through the regular
collection of data, including student performance and financial data,
and measurable performance goals;
iii. Identify schools eligible for renewal and those that should be
closed through clear renewal and revocation criteria;
iv. Maintain portfolios of high-quality charter schools by
evaluating authorizer and portfolio performance and disseminating
information on the performance of those portfolios;
(2) The applicant's prior success in improving, within a variety of
communities in one or more States, authorized public chartering
agencies' capacity to:
i. Approve only high-quality charter schools that meet the
standards of a rigorous application process and review;
ii. Monitor and oversee charter schools through the regular
collection of data, including student performance and financial data,
and measurable performance goals;
iii. Identify schools eligible for renewal and those that should be
closed through clear renewal and revocation criteria;
iv. Maintain portfolios of high-quality charter schools by
evaluating authorizer and portfolio performance and disseminating
information on the performance of those portfolios, and help improve
the ability of other
[[Page 72602]]
authorized public chartering agencies to produce similar results;
(3) How dissemination activities focus on authorized public
chartering agencies as the primary stakeholder group, and secondarily
on other stakeholders, such as charter school support organizations or
charter schools, as appropriate, at the charter school national level;
(4) How the dissemination strategy will include assembling a
community of practice for the stakeholder group(s) served; and
(5) The national significance and scope of the proposed project.
Proposed Priority 3--Students With Disabilities
Background
As public schools, it is essential that charter schools provide
equitable access and appropriate educational services to all students,
regardless of disability, as set forth in the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and the Department's Section 504 regulations. A GAO report
released in June, 2012 found that charter schools enrolled a lower
percentage of students with disabilities than traditional public
schools. This discrepancy may have many contributing factors that are
likely to vary from school to school. Regardless, charter schools
should have the capacity to serve all students with disabilities
irrespective of severity or type of disability. The Department believes
that charter schools are well-positioned to develop new approaches to
meeting the needs of students with disabilities and improve educational
outcomes for these students. The Department proposes a priority for
projects designed to improve charter schools' capacity, through a
variety of methods, to recruit and serve students with disabilities
more effectively.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and
scope that are designed to increase access to charter schools for
students with disabilities and increase the schools' enrollment, as
well as improve achievement (including student achievement and student
growth) and attainment (including high school graduation rates and
college enrollment rates) for students with disabilities in charter
schools, through one or both of the following activities:
(1) Developing strategies and tools to increase access to charter
schools for students with disabilities and increase the schools'
capacity to enroll students with disabilities, and improve student
achievement, student growth, high school graduation rates, and college
enrollment rates for students with disabilities.
(2) Disseminating promising practices that increase access to
charter schools for students with disabilities and increase the
schools' capacity to enroll students with disabilities; and improve
student achievement, student growth, high school graduation rates, and
college enrollment rates for students with disabilities.
Proposed Priority 4--English Learners
Background
From 2001 to 2010 the number of students identified as English
Learners increased significantly, growing from approximately 3,700,000
to 4,660,275 nationwide. In 2011, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress reports on mathematics, reading, and science
showed a difference in scores between English Learners and non-English
Learners of 49, 47, and 62 percent, respectively.\2\ The Department
believes that charter schools are well-positioned to develop new
approaches to meeting the needs of English Learners and can play an
integral role in closing the achievement and attainment gaps between
English Learners and their peers. The Department proposes a priority
for projects designed to improve charter schools' capacity, through a
variety of methods, to recruit and serve English Learners more
effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ell-1.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and
scope that are designed to increase access to charter schools for
English Learners and increase the schools' enrollment, as well as
improve achievement (including student achievement and student growth)
and attainment (including English proficiency, high school graduation
rates, and college enrollment rates) for English Learners in charter
schools, through one or more of the following activities:
(1) Developing strategies and tools to increase access to charter
schools for English Learners and increase the schools' capacity to
enroll English Learners, and improve student achievement, student
growth, English proficiency, high school graduation rates, and college
enrollment rates for English Learner students.
(2) Disseminating promising practices that increase access to
charter schools for English Learners and increase the schools' capacity
to enroll English Learners, and improve student achievement, student
growth, English proficiency, high school graduation rates, and college
enrollment rates for English Learners.
Proposed Priority 5--Personalized Technology-Enabled Learning
Background
Learning models that blend traditional, classroom-based teaching
and learning with virtual, online, or digital delivery of personalized
instructional content offer the potential to transform public education
and create significant improvements in students' achievement, growth,
engagement, and non-cognitive skills. In order to achieve superior
outcomes, the effective development and implementation of these models
are essential.
In particular, technology-enabled learning tools must be
functional, engaging, user-friendly, appropriate for students with
diverse learning needs, and aligned with college-and-career-ready
standards. Moreover, it is of great importance to ensure equitable
access to and use of these tools and supports by high-need students.
In light of the operational autonomy that charter schools possess
and the focus that many of these schools have on serving high-need
students, charter schools are uniquely positioned to contribute to the
development and implementation of instructional models that effectively
incorporate technology-enabled personalized learning tools and supports
for high-need students. The Department proposes this priority to
stimulate and support such efforts.
Proposed Priority
This proposed priority is for projects of national significance and
scope that are designed to improve achievement and attainment outcomes
for high-need students through the development and implementation in
charter schools of technology-enabled instructional models, tools, and
supports that personalize instruction.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority,
[[Page 72603]]
we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding
additional points, depending on the extent to which the application
meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an
application that meets the priority over an application of comparable
merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirements
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes the following requirements for this program. We may apply one
or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in
effect. By requiring that applicants provide a charter school logic
model supporting their projects and restricting eligibility for grants
to specific types of entities, the Department will ensure that grantees
have the preparation and experience to be successful with a CSP Grant
for National Leadership Activities.
Proposed Application Requirements
Logic Model
An applicant for a CSP Grant for National Leadership Activities
must provide a charter school logic model (as defined in this notice)
supporting its project.
Eligibility
Eligible applicants include (1) State educational agencies (SEAs)
in States with a State statute specifically authorizing the
establishment of charter schools; (2) authorized public chartering
agencies; (3) public and private nonprofit organizations with a mission
that explicitly includes supporting charter schools; and (4) public and
private nonprofit organizations in partnership with an SEA, authorized
public chartering agency, or a public or private nonprofit organization
with a mission that explicitly includes supporting charter schools.
Eligible applicants may apply as a group or consortium.
Note: The Secretary invites comment on this eligibility
requirement, particularly regarding whether public and private
nonprofit organizations should be required to have a mission that
explicitly includes supporting charter schools and the elements that
should be required to confirm eligibility.
Proposed Definitions
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes the following definitions for this program. We may apply one
or more of these definitions in any year in which the program is in
effect.
The proposed definitions for ``high-quality charter school'' and
``significant compliance issue'' are based on the definitions in the
notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions for the CSP
Replication and Expansion grant program, published in the Federal
Register on July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40898). The proposed definitions for
``graduation rate'' and ``student achievement'' are identical to the
definitions in the Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary Grant
Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR
78510), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637). The proposed
definitions for ``student growth'' and ``high-need students'' are based
on the definitions in the Supplemental Priorities for Discretionary
Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010
(75 FR 78510), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637). The
proposed definition for ``charter school logic model'' is based on the
definition of ``logic model'' in the Direct Grant Programs and
Definitions That Apply to Department Regulations Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2012 (77
FR 74392).
Charter school logic model means a well-specified conceptual
framework that identifies key components of the proposed practice,
strategy, or intervention (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are
hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and
describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes,
theoretically and operationally.
Charter school national level means, with respect to an applicant's
dissemination strategy, that the strategy covers a wide variety of
charter schools, authorized public chartering agencies, charter support
organizations, and other stakeholder groups within multiple States
across the country, including rural and urban areas.
Community of practice means a group of stakeholders that interacts
regularly to solve a persistent problem or to improve practice in an
area that is important to them and the success of the grant project.
Graduation rate means a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and may also include an extended-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(v) if the State in which the proposed project is
implemented has been approved by the Secretary to use such a rate under
Title I of the ESEA.
High-need students means children and students at risk of
educational failure, such as children and students who are living in
poverty, who are English Learners, who are far below grade level or who
are not on track to becoming college- or career-ready by graduation,
who have left school or college before receiving, respectively, a
regular high school diploma or a college degree or certificate, who are
at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who
are in foster care, who are pregnant or parenting teenagers, who have
been incarcerated, who are new immigrants, who are migrant, or who have
disabilities.
High-quality charter school means a school that shows evidence of
strong academic results for the past three years (or over the life of
the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three years),
based on the following factors:
(1) Increased student academic achievement and attainment for all
students, including, as applicable, educationally disadvantaged
students;
(2) Either (i) Demonstrated success in closing historic achievement
gaps for the subgroups of students described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA; or
(ii) No significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups
of students described in section 1111 (b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA and
significant gains in student academic achievement have been made with
all populations of students served by the charter school;
(3) Achieved results (including performance on statewide tests,
annual high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and
college persistence rates where applicable and available) for low-
income and other educationally disadvantaged students served by the
charter school; and
(4) No significant compliance issues (as defined in this notice),
particularly in the areas of student safety and financial management.
Significant compliance issue means a violation that did, will, or
could lead to the revocation of a school's charter.
Student achievement means--
(a) For tested grades and subjects--
(1) A student's score on the State's assessments under the ESEA;
and, as appropriate,
[[Page 72604]]
(2) Other measures of student learning, such as those described in
paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and
comparable across schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: Alternative measures of
student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that
are rigorous and comparable across schools.
Student growth means the change in achievement data for an
individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may also
include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across
classrooms.
Final Priorities, Requirements and Definitions
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, and
definitions in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the
final priorities, requirements, and definitions after considering
responses to this notice and other information available to the
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria subject to
meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note:
This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which
we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities,
requirements, and definitions, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practical--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements, and
definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits
justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits.
The Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to
provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that the public understands the
Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the
requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and
financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly
understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of
collection requirements on respondents.
These proposed regulations contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-
0006; these proposed regulations do not affect the currently approved
data collection.
We estimate that each applicant would spend approximately 176 hours
of staff time to address the proposed requirements, prepare the
application, and obtain necessary clearances. The total number of hours
for all expected applicants is an estimated 7,040 hours. We estimate
the total cost per hour of the applicant-level staff who will carry out
this work to be $57 per hour. The total estimated cost for all
applicants would be $401,280.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
[[Page 72605]]
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: November 26, 2013.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Innovation and
Improvement, delegated the authority to perform the functions and
duties of the Assistant Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28939 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P