Proposed Priority and Requirement-Equity Assistance Centers (Formerly Desegregation Assistance Centers (DAC)), 18818-18821 [2016-07459]

Download as PDF 18818 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules Dated: March 28, 2016. John B. King, Jr., Secretary of Education. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes to amend 34 CFR part 612, as proposed to be added at 79 FR 71885, December 3, 2014, and part 686, as proposed to be amended at 79 FR 71889, December 3, 2014, as follows: PART 612—TITLE II REPORTING SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 612 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1022d, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 612.4 is amended by: A. In paragraph (a)(1)(i), removing the words ‘‘including distance education programs’’ that appear after the punctuation ‘‘,’’; ■ B. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(ii) as paragraph (a)(1)(iii); and ■ C. Adding new paragraph (a)(1)(ii). The addition reads as follows: ■ ■ § 612.4 What are the regulatory reporting requirements for the State Report Card? (a) * * * (1) * * * (ii) The quality of all teacher preparation programs provided through distance education in the State, using procedures for reporting that are consistent with paragraph (b)(4) of this section, but based on whether the program produces at least 25 or fewer than 25 new teachers whom the State certified to teach in a given reporting year; and * * * * * PART 686—TEACHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE FOR COLLEGE AND HIGHER EDUCATION (TEACH) GRANT PROGRAM 3. The authority citation for part 686 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070g, et seq., unless otherwise noted. 4. Section 686.2 is amended by: A. Adding in alphabetical order a definition of ‘‘High-quality teacher preparation program provided through distance education’’ to paragraph (e); ■ B. Revising the proposed definition of ‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible institution’’ in paragraph (e); and ■ C. Revising the proposed definition of ‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’ in paragraph (e). The additions and revisions read as follows: Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS ■ ■ § 686.2 * * Definitions. * VerDate Sep<11>2014 * * 14:16 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 (e) * * * High-quality teacher preparation program provided through distance education: A teacher preparation program provided through distance education that— (i) For TEACH Grant program purposes in the 2021–2022 Title IV HEA award year, is not classified by any State as low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing under 34 CFR 612.4(b) in either or both the April 2020 and/or April 2021 State Report Cards, and for TEACH Grant program purposes in the 2022–2023 Title IV HEA award year and subsequent award years, is not classified by any State as low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing under 34 CFR 612.4(b), beginning with the April 2020 State Report Card, for two out of the previous three years; or (ii) Meets the exception from State reporting of teacher preparation program performance under 34 CFR 612.4(b)(4)(ii)(D) or (E). * * * * * TEACH Grant-eligible institution: An eligible institution as defined in 34 CFR part 600 that meets financial responsibility standards established in 34 CFR part 668, subpart L, or that qualifies under an alternative standard in 34 CFR 668.175 and provides— (i) At least one high-quality teacher preparation program or high-quality teacher preparation program provided through distance education at the baccalaureate or master’s degree level that also provides supervision and support services to teachers, or assists in the provision of services to teachers, such as— (A) Identifying and making available information on effective teaching skills or strategies; (B) Identifying and making available information on effective practices in the supervision and coaching of novice teachers; and (C) Mentoring focused on developing effective teaching skills and strategies; (ii) A two-year program that is acceptable for full credit in a TEACH Grant-eligible program or a TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program offered by an institution described in paragraph (i) of this definition or a TEACH Granteligible STEM program offered by an institution described in paragraph (iii) of this definition, as demonstrated by the institution that provides the two year program; (iii) A TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program and has entered into an agreement with an institution described in paragraph (i) or (iv) of this definition to provide courses necessary for its students to begin a career in teaching; or PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (iv) A high-quality teacher preparation program or high-quality teacher preparation program provided through distance education that is a post-baccalaureate program of study. TEACH Grant-eligible program: An eligible program, as defined in 34 CFR 668.8, that meets paragraph (i) of the definition of ‘‘high-quality teacher preparation program’’ or the definition of ‘‘high-quality teacher preparation program provided through distance education’’ and that is designed to prepare an individual to teach as a highly-qualified teacher in a high-need field and leads to a baccalaureate or master’s degree, or is a postbaccalaureate program of study. A twoyear program of study that is acceptable for full credit toward a baccalaureate degree in a high-quality teacher preparation program or a high-quality teacher preparation program provided through distance education is considered to be a program of study that leads to a baccalaureate degree. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2016–07354 Filed 3–31–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter II [Docket ID ED–2016–OESE–0015; CFDA Number: 84.004D.] Proposed Priority and Requirement— Equity Assistance Centers (Formerly Desegregation Assistance Centers (DAC)) Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Proposed priority and requirement. AGENCY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education (Assistant Secretary) proposes a priority and a requirement under the Equity Assistance Centers (EAC) Program. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority and this requirement for competitions in fiscal year 2016 and later years. We take this action to encourage applicants with a track record of success or demonstrated expertise in socioeconomic integration strategies that are effective for addressing problems occasioned by the desegregation of schools based on race, national origin, sex, or religion. We intend for the priority and the requirement to help ensure that grant recipients have the capacity to increase socioeconomic diversity to create successful plans for desegregation and SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\01APP1.SGM 01APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules to address special educational problems occasioned by bringing together students from different social, economic, and racial backgrounds. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 2, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under ‘‘How to use regulations.gov.’’ • Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priority and requirement, address them to Britt Jung, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E206, Washington, DC 20202– 6135. Telephone: (202) 205–4513. Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available. Britt Jung, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E206, Washington, DC 20202–6135. Telephone: (202) 205–4513 or by email: britt.jung@ed.gov. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority and requirement, we urge you to identify clearly the specific issues 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 this proposed priority Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 and requirement. 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 programs. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in Room 3E206, 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. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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 for this notice. 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: This program awards grants through cooperative agreements to operate regional EACs that provide technical assistance (including training) at the request of school boards and other responsible governmental agencies in the preparation, adoption, and implementation of plans for the desegregation of public schools and in the development of effective methods of addressing special educational problems occasioned by desegregation. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3; 42 U.S.C. 2000c– 2000c–2 and 2000c–5. Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 270 and 272. Note: We published a notice of proposed rulemaking elsewhere in the Federal Register on March 24, 2016 (81 FR 15665) for the EAC program regulations in 34 CFR parts 270 and 272, which proposes to condense the regulations in 34 CFR parts 270 and 272 into one part, located at part 270. Proposed Priority: This notice contains one proposed priority. A track record of success or demonstrated expertise in developing or providing technical assistance to increase socioeconomic diversity in schools or school districts as a means to further desegregation by race, sex, national origin, and religion. Background: Under section 403 of title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 18819 2000c–2), the Secretary is authorized, upon request, to render technical assistance in the preparation, adoption, and implementation of plans for the desegregation of public schools. We propose to add a priority to further the work of the EACs in the desegregation of public schools and, specifically, to promote socioeconomic diversity. Sixty years after Brown v. Board of Education, data show that many schools and communities continue to suffer the effects of racial segregation, and that many of our Nation’s largest school districts remain starkly segregated along racial and economic lines.1 The widening gap between rich and poor has further concentrated areas of poverty that are in many cases also segregated communities of color. Children living in concentrated poverty face overwhelming barriers to learning, placing a burden on highpoverty schools and contributing to poor academic and life outcomes for students.2 In 2012, one-quarter of our Nation’s students attended schools where more than 75 percent of the student body was eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch; in cities, almost 1 See, e.g., National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Digest of Education Statistics, Table 216.6. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_216.60.asp. 2 See, e.g., Coleman, James S., Earnest Q. Campbell, Carol J. Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander M. Mood, Frederic D. Weinfeld, and Robert L. York. (1966). ‘‘Equality of Educational Opportunity.’’ National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf. Rumberger, Russell W., and Gregory J. Palardy. (September 2005). ‘‘Does Segregation Still Matter? The Impact of Student Composition on Academic Achievement in High School.’’ Teachers College Record, Columbia University. Volume 107, Number 9, pp 1999–2045. Retrieved from: http:// www.learningace.com/doc/2775808/4a5b8639 fd56f24cb076d144853d6b5f/rumberger-palardydoes-segregation-still-matter-tcr-2005. Aud, S., W. Hussar, M. Planty, T. Snyder, K. Bianco, M. Fox, L. Frohlich, J. Kemp, and L. Drake. (2010). ‘‘The Condition of Education 2010’’ (NCES 2010–028). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2010/2010028.pdf. Mulligan, G.M., S. Hastedt, and J.C. McCarroll. (2012). ‘‘First-Time Kindergartners in 2010–11: First Findings From the Kindergarten Rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11’’ (ECLS–K:2011) (NCES 2012– 049). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012049.pdf. Ross, T., G. Kena, A. Rathbun, A. KewalRamani, J. Zhang, P. Kristapovich, and E. Manning. (2012). ‘‘Higher Education: Gaps in Access and Persistence Study’’ (NCES 2012–046). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED534691.pdf. E:\FR\FM\01APP1.SGM 01APP1 18820 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS half of all public school students attend high-poverty schools.3 Moreover, more than one third of all American Indian/ Alaska Native students and nearly half of all African-American and Latino students attend these high-poverty schools, highlighting the often inextricable link between racially and socioeconomically isolated schools and communities. Students attending high-poverty schools continue to have unequal access to—(1) advanced coursework; (2) the most effective teachers; and (3) necessary funding and supports.4 Moreover, research shows that States with less socioeconomically diverse schools tend to have larger achievement gaps between low- and higher-income students.5 The Department intends to continue our efforts to reduce racial isolation in public schools. However, given the growing body of research showing that socioeconomically diverse schools can lead to improved outcomes for disadvantaged students,6 the Department plans to focus on increasing socioeconomic diversity in our Nation’s schools. In addition, we believe the successful implementation of strategies to attract middle- and high-income students into high-poverty schools will 3 National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Digest of Education Statistics, Table 216.6. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ d14/tables/dt14_216.60.asp. 4 See, e.g., National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics, Table 225.40. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/ programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_225.40.asp. Max, Jeffrey and Steven Glazerman (2014). ‘‘Do Disadvantaged Students Get Less Effective Teaching? ’’ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/ 20144010/pdf/20144010.pdf. Gray, Lucinda, et al. Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: Fall 2008 (Apr. 2010) (NCES 2010–034). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010034.pdf. Wells, John, and Laurie Lewis. Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994–2005 (November 2006). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf. 5 Mantil, Ann, Anne G. Perkins, and Stephanie Aberger. (February 27, 2012). ‘‘The Challenge of High Poverty Schools: How Feasible Is Socioeconomic School Integration?’’ In ‘‘The Future of School Integration,’’ Kahlenberg, Richard D., ed. The Century Foundation. pp 155–222. 6 Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. (2015). The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. No. w21156. National Bureau of Economic Research; and Schwartz, Heather. (2012). ‘‘Housing Policy is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland.’’ In The Future of School Integration: Socioeconomic Diversity as an Education Reform Strategy, edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg, 27–65. Century Foundation. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 create greater incentives for States and districts to provide better resources, opportunities, and supports in those schools. Proposed Priority: Eligible applicants that have a track record of success or demonstrated expertise in both of the following: (a) Providing effective and comprehensive technical assistance on strategies or interventions supported by evidence and designed to increase socioeconomic diversity within or across schools, districts, or communities; and (b) Researching, evaluating, or developing strategies or interventions supported by evidence and designed to increase socioeconomic diversity within or across schools, districts, or communities. 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)). Proposed Requirement: Background: To ensure the effective implementation of the proposed priority described in this notice, we propose to establish a program requirement to ensure that funded grantees conduct critical outreach with appropriate stakeholders. The Assistant Secretary proposes the following requirement for this program. We may apply this requirement in any year in which this program is in effect. Proposed Requirement: Conducting Outreach and Engagement: When providing technical assistance on socioeconomic diversity in response to requests from responsible governmental agencies as a means to PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 further desegregation by race, sex, national origin, and religion, a grantee under this program must assist in conducting outreach and engagement on strategies or interventions designed to increase socioeconomic diversity with appropriate stakeholders, including community members, parents and teachers. Final Priority and Requirement: We will announce the final priority and requirement in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority and requirement 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 this priority or requirement, 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 proposed 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, E:\FR\FM\01APP1.SGM 01APP1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 proposed priority and requirement only on a reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563. We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:16 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 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: March 29, 2016. Ann Whalen, Senior Advisor to the Secretary Delegated the Duties of Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. [FR Doc. 2016–07459 Filed 3–31–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 18821 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 7 [NPS–GOGA–19691; PX.XGOGA1604.00.1] RIN 1024–AE16 Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Dog Management—Extension of Public Comment Period and Corrections National Park Service, Interior. Proposed rule; extension of public comment period; corrections. AGENCY: ACTION: The National Park Service is extending the public comment period for the proposed rule to amend its special regulations for Golden Gate National Recreation Area regarding dog walking. Reopening the comment period for 30 days will allow more time for the public to review the proposal and submit comments. This document also corrects Table 4 to § 7.97 in the proposed rule by removing the designation of Ocean Beach as a Voice and Sight Control Area for walking four to six dogs that was included by an administrative error. The proposed rule also contained a typographical error in the email address for persons to contact the NPS for further information. The correct email address is goga_dogmgt@ nps.gov. DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule that published on February 24, 2016 (81 FR 9139), is extended. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 25, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024–AE16, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments after searching for RIN 1024–AE16. • Mail or hand deliver to: General Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Attn: Dog Management Proposed Rule, Fort Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, CA 94123. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and (RIN) 1024–AE16 for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. If you commented on the Draft Dog Management Plan/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (draft Plan/SEIS), your comment has been considered in drafting the proposed rule. Comments SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\01APP1.SGM 01APP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18818-18821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07459]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2016-OESE-0015; CFDA Number: 84.004D.]


Proposed Priority and Requirement--Equity Assistance Centers 
(Formerly Desegregation Assistance Centers (DAC))

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Proposed priority and requirement.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
(Assistant Secretary) proposes a priority and a requirement under the 
Equity Assistance Centers (EAC) Program. The Assistant Secretary may 
use this priority and this requirement for competitions in fiscal year 
2016 and later years. We take this action to encourage applicants with 
a track record of success or demonstrated expertise in socioeconomic 
integration strategies that are effective for addressing problems 
occasioned by the desegregation of schools based on race, national 
origin, sex, or religion. We intend for the priority and the 
requirement to help ensure that grant recipients have the capacity to 
increase socioeconomic diversity to create successful plans for 
desegregation and

[[Page 18819]]

to address special educational problems occasioned by bringing together 
students from different social, economic, and racial backgrounds.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``How to use regulations.gov.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priority and 
requirement, address them to Britt Jung, U.S. Department of Education, 
400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E206, Washington, DC 20202-6135. 
Telephone: (202) 205-4513.

    Privacy Note:  The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to 
include in their comments only information that they wish to make 
publicly available.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Britt Jung, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E206, Washington, DC 20202-
6135. Telephone: (202) 205-4513 or by email: britt.jung@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the notice of final priority and requirement, we urge you to 
identify clearly the specific issues 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 this 
proposed priority and requirement. 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 
programs.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also 
inspect the comments in person in Room 3E206, 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. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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 for this notice. 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: This program awards grants through cooperative 
agreements to operate regional EACs that provide technical assistance 
(including training) at the request of school boards and other 
responsible governmental agencies in the preparation, adoption, and 
implementation of plans for the desegregation of public schools and in 
the development of effective methods of addressing special educational 
problems occasioned by desegregation.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 42 U.S.C. 2000c- 2000c-2 
and 2000c-5.

    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 270 and 272.

    Note: We published a notice of proposed rulemaking elsewhere in 
the Federal Register on March 24, 2016 (81 FR 15665) for the EAC 
program regulations in 34 CFR parts 270 and 272, which proposes to 
condense the regulations in 34 CFR parts 270 and 272 into one part, 
located at part 270.

    Proposed Priority:
    This notice contains one proposed priority.
    A track record of success or demonstrated expertise in developing 
or providing technical assistance to increase socioeconomic diversity 
in schools or school districts as a means to further desegregation by 
race, sex, national origin, and religion.
    Background:
    Under section 403 of title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
U.S.C. 2000c-2), the Secretary is authorized, upon request, to render 
technical assistance in the preparation, adoption, and implementation 
of plans for the desegregation of public schools. We propose to add a 
priority to further the work of the EACs in the desegregation of public 
schools and, specifically, to promote socioeconomic diversity.
    Sixty years after Brown v. Board of Education, data show that many 
schools and communities continue to suffer the effects of racial 
segregation, and that many of our Nation's largest school districts 
remain starkly segregated along racial and economic lines.\1\ The 
widening gap between rich and poor has further concentrated areas of 
poverty that are in many cases also segregated communities of color.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). 
Digest of Education Statistics, Table 216.6. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_216.60.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Children living in concentrated poverty face overwhelming barriers 
to learning, placing a burden on high-poverty schools and contributing 
to poor academic and life outcomes for students.\2\ In 2012, one-
quarter of our Nation's students attended schools where more than 75 
percent of the student body was eligible for free- or reduced-price 
lunch; in cities, almost

[[Page 18820]]

half of all public school students attend high-poverty schools.\3\ 
Moreover, more than one third of all American Indian/Alaska Native 
students and nearly half of all African-American and Latino students 
attend these high-poverty schools, highlighting the often inextricable 
link between racially and socioeconomically isolated schools and 
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., Coleman, James S., Earnest Q. Campbell, Carol J. 
Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander M. Mood, Frederic D. Weinfeld, 
and Robert L. York. (1966). ``Equality of Educational Opportunity.'' 
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of 
Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf.
    Rumberger, Russell W., and Gregory J. Palardy. (September 2005). 
``Does Segregation Still Matter? The Impact of Student Composition 
on Academic Achievement in High School.'' Teachers College Record, 
Columbia University. Volume 107, Number 9, pp 1999-2045. Retrieved 
from: http://www.learningace.com/doc/2775808/4a5b8639fd56f24cb076d144853d6b5f/rumberger-palardy-does-segregation-still-matter-tcr-2005.
    Aud, S., W. Hussar, M. Planty, T. Snyder, K. Bianco, M. Fox, L. 
Frohlich, J. Kemp, and L. Drake. (2010). ``The Condition of 
Education 2010'' (NCES 2010-028). National Center for Education 
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 
Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved 
from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028.pdf.
    Mulligan, G.M., S. Hastedt, and J.C. McCarroll. (2012). ``First-
Time Kindergartners in 2010-11: First Findings From the Kindergarten 
Rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class 
of 2010-11'' (ECLS-K:2011) (NCES 2012-049). National Center for 
Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012049.pdf.
    Ross, T., G. Kena, A. Rathbun, A. KewalRamani, J. Zhang, P. 
Kristapovich, and E. Manning. (2012). ``Higher Education: Gaps in 
Access and Persistence Study'' (NCES 2012-046). U.S. Department of 
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: 
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED534691.pdf.
    \3\ National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Digest of 
Education Statistics, Table 216.6. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_216.60.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Students attending high-poverty schools continue to have unequal 
access to--(1) advanced coursework; (2) the most effective teachers; 
and (3) necessary funding and supports.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). 
Digest of Education Statistics, Table 225.40. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_225.40.asp.
     Max, Jeffrey and Steven Glazerman (2014). ``Do Disadvantaged 
Students Get Less Effective Teaching? '' U.S. Department of 
Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 
Assistance. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved 
from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144010/pdf/20144010.pdf.
     Gray, Lucinda, et al. Educational Technology in U.S. Public 
Schools: Fall 2008 (Apr. 2010) (NCES 2010-034). U.S. Department of 
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, available at:  
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010034.pdf.
     Wells, John, and Laurie Lewis. Internet Access in U.S. Public 
Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2005 (November 2006). U.S. Department 
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, available 
at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, research shows that States with less socioeconomically 
diverse schools tend to have larger achievement gaps between low- and 
higher-income students.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Mantil, Ann, Anne G. Perkins, and Stephanie Aberger. 
(February 27, 2012). ``The Challenge of High Poverty Schools: How 
Feasible Is Socioeconomic School Integration?'' In ``The Future of 
School Integration,'' Kahlenberg, Richard D., ed. The Century 
Foundation. pp 155-222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department intends to continue our efforts to reduce racial 
isolation in public schools. However, given the growing body of 
research showing that socioeconomically diverse schools can lead to 
improved outcomes for disadvantaged students,\6\ the Department plans 
to focus on increasing socioeconomic diversity in our Nation's schools. 
In addition, we believe the successful implementation of strategies to 
attract middle- and high-income students into high-poverty schools will 
create greater incentives for States and districts to provide better 
resources, opportunities, and supports in those schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. 
(2015). The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: 
New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. No. w21156. 
National Bureau of Economic Research; and Schwartz, Heather. (2012). 
``Housing Policy is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing 
Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland.'' In The 
Future of School Integration: Socioeconomic Diversity as an 
Education Reform Strategy, edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg, 27-65. 
Century Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority:
    Eligible applicants that have a track record of success or 
demonstrated expertise in both of the following:
    (a) Providing effective and comprehensive technical assistance on 
strategies or interventions supported by evidence and designed to 
increase socioeconomic diversity within or across schools, districts, 
or communities; and
    (b) Researching, evaluating, or developing strategies or 
interventions supported by evidence and designed to increase 
socioeconomic diversity within or across schools, districts, or 
communities.
    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)).
    Proposed Requirement:
    Background: To ensure the effective implementation of the proposed 
priority described in this notice, we propose to establish a program 
requirement to ensure that funded grantees conduct critical outreach 
with appropriate stakeholders.
    The Assistant Secretary proposes the following requirement for this 
program. We may apply this requirement in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    Proposed Requirement:
    Conducting Outreach and Engagement: When providing technical 
assistance on socioeconomic diversity in response to requests from 
responsible governmental agencies as a means to further desegregation 
by race, sex, national origin, and religion, a grantee under this 
program must assist in conducting outreach and engagement on strategies 
or interventions designed to increase socioeconomic diversity with 
appropriate stakeholders, including community members, parents and 
teachers.
    Final Priority and Requirement: We will announce the final priority 
and requirement in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine 
the final priority and requirement 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 this priority or requirement, 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 proposed 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,

[[Page 18821]]

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 proposed priority and requirement only on a 
reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    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 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: March 29, 2016.
Ann Whalen,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary Delegated the Duties of Assistant 
Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2016-07459 Filed 3-31-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P