Final Priority and Requirement-Equity Assistance Centers, 46817-46819 [2016-16810]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations place of employment only if the participant left the training activity because of circumstances not reasonably within his or her control. § 270.32 What limitation is imposed on providing Equity Assistance under this program? A recipient of a grant under this program may not use funds to assist in the development or implementation of activities or the development of curriculum materials for the direct instruction of students to improve their academic and vocational achievement levels. PART 271 [REMOVED AND RESERVED] 2. Under the authority of section 414 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. 3474, part 271 is removed and reserved. ■ PART 272 [REMOVED AND RESERVED] 3. Under the authority of section 414 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. 3474, part 272 is removed and reserved. ■ [FR Doc. 2016–16811 Filed 7–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket ID ED–2016–OESE–0015; CFDA Number: 84.004D] Final Priority and Requirement—Equity Assistance Centers Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Final priority and requirement. AGENCY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education (Assistant Secretary) announces 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 support responsible governmental agencies as sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:52 Jul 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 This priority and requirement is effective August 17, 2016. 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. DATES: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Program: The EAC 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. 34 CFR Chapter II SUMMARY: they seek to increase socioeconomic diversity, to create successful plans for desegregation, and to address special educational problems occasioned by bringing together students from different social, economic, religious, and racial backgrounds. Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 270. Note: We published a notice of final regulations elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. We published a notice of proposed priority and requirement for this program in the Federal Register on April 1, 2016 (81 FR 18818). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priority and requirement. There are no differences between the proposed priority and requirement and this final priority and requirement. Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priority and requirement, one party submitted a substantive comment on the proposed priority and requirement. Generally, we do not discuss technical and other minor changes. Analysis of Comment: An analysis of the comment follows. Comment: One commenter stated that expertise in socioeconomic integration strategies is valuable, but recommended that we eliminate the proposed priority on the basis that expertise in areas of sex, race, and national origin desegregation is more important. The PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 46817 commenter was particularly opposed to the proposed priority being used as an absolute priority. The commenter asserted that it is more important to include a priority for staff qualifications, including expertise in Federal, State, and local laws related to sex, race, and national origin discrimination and expertise in related research on what works to increase all types of integration and avoid discrimination. Discussion: While we agree that staff qualifications should include expertise in Federal, State, and local laws related to sex, race, and national origin desegregation and related research, we believe that a priority for expertise in providing technical assistance to increase socioeconomic diversity will strengthen EAC programs without detracting from the existing issue areas. As noted in the notice of proposed priority and requirement, more than one-third of all American Indian/Alaska Native students and nearly half of all African-American and Latino students attend high-poverty schools.1 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.2 Moreover, research shows that States with less socioeconomically diverse schools tend to have larger achievement gaps between low- and higher-income students.3 We believe that socioeconomic integration strategies can be vital tools for EAC technical assistance centers in their work to support all four areas of desegregation assistance: Race, sex, national origin, and religion. The 1 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., 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. 3 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. E:\FR\FM\18JYR3.SGM 18JYR3 46818 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations addition of this priority does not alter the civil rights of students, but rather seeks to ensure that EAC technical assistance centers will have the tools to use socioeconomic integration strategies in supporting students’ existing rights. We further note that title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and our implementing regulations limit the centers to providing services upon request. The demand-driven nature of the program precludes the regional centers from choosing to focus on any desegregation assistance area at the expense of another. Instead, all EAC technical assistance centers will be expected to provide assistance across all of the desegregation assistance areas, upon request. We also note that the establishment of this priority does not identify it as an absolute priority. Instead, we will designate the type of priority, whether absolute, competitive preference, or invitational, through a notice in the Federal Register for each competition. Changes: None. Final Priority This notice contains one final 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. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3 Final 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)). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:52 Jul 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 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. 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 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; PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order. This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency— (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices. Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ‘‘to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.’’ The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include ‘‘identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.’’ We are issuing this final priority and requirement only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that E:\FR\FM\18JYR3.SGM 18JYR3 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES3 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 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:52 Jul 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 46819 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: July 12, 2016, Ann Whalen, Senior Advisor to the Secretary Delegated the Duties of Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. [FR Doc. 2016–16810 Filed 7–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P E:\FR\FM\18JYR3.SGM 18JYR3

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46817-46819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16810]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

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


Final Priority and Requirement--Equity Assistance Centers

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

ACTION: Final priority and requirement.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
(Assistant Secretary) announces 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 
support responsible governmental agencies as they seek to increase 
socioeconomic diversity, to create successful plans for desegregation, 
and to address special educational problems occasioned by bringing 
together students from different social, economic, religious, and 
racial backgrounds.

DATES: This priority and requirement is effective August 17, 2016.

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: 
    Purpose of Program: The EAC 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.
    Note: We published a notice of final regulations elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register.
    We published a notice of proposed priority and requirement for this 
program in the Federal Register on April 1, 2016 (81 FR 18818). That 
notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing 
the particular priority and requirement.
    There are no differences between the proposed priority and 
requirement and this final priority and requirement.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of 
proposed priority and requirement, one party submitted a substantive 
comment on the proposed priority and requirement. Generally, we do not 
discuss technical and other minor changes.
    Analysis of Comment: An analysis of the comment follows.
    Comment: One commenter stated that expertise in socioeconomic 
integration strategies is valuable, but recommended that we eliminate 
the proposed priority on the basis that expertise in areas of sex, 
race, and national origin desegregation is more important. The 
commenter was particularly opposed to the proposed priority being used 
as an absolute priority. The commenter asserted that it is more 
important to include a priority for staff qualifications, including 
expertise in Federal, State, and local laws related to sex, race, and 
national origin discrimination and expertise in related research on 
what works to increase all types of integration and avoid 
discrimination.
    Discussion: While we agree that staff qualifications should include 
expertise in Federal, State, and local laws related to sex, race, and 
national origin desegregation and related research, we believe that a 
priority for expertise in providing technical assistance to increase 
socioeconomic diversity will strengthen EAC programs without detracting 
from the existing issue areas.
    As noted in the notice of proposed priority and requirement, more 
than one-third of all American Indian/Alaska Native students and nearly 
half of all African-American and Latino students attend high-poverty 
schools.\1\ 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.\2\ Moreover, research 
shows that States with less socioeconomically diverse schools tend to 
have larger achievement gaps between low- and higher-income 
students.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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., 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.
    \3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that socioeconomic integration strategies can be vital 
tools for EAC technical assistance centers in their work to support all 
four areas of desegregation assistance: Race, sex, national origin, and 
religion. The

[[Page 46818]]

addition of this priority does not alter the civil rights of students, 
but rather seeks to ensure that EAC technical assistance centers will 
have the tools to use socioeconomic integration strategies in 
supporting students' existing rights. We further note that title IV of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and our implementing regulations limit the 
centers to providing services upon request. The demand-driven nature of 
the program precludes the regional centers from choosing to focus on 
any desegregation assistance area at the expense of another. Instead, 
all EAC technical assistance centers will be expected to provide 
assistance across all of the desegregation assistance areas, upon 
request.
    We also note that the establishment of this priority does not 
identify it as an absolute priority. Instead, we will designate the 
type of priority, whether absolute, competitive preference, or 
invitational, through a notice in the Federal Register for each 
competition.
    Changes: None.

Final Priority

    This notice contains one final 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.

Final 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)).

Final 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.
    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 regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing this final priority and requirement only on a 
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches 
that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that

[[Page 46819]]

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 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: July 12, 2016,
Ann Whalen,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary Delegated the Duties of Assistant 
Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2016-16810 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P