Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Performance Measures-Comprehensive Centers Program, 13122-13132 [2019-06583]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13122-13132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06583]



[[Page 13122]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2018-OESE-0069: CFDA Number: 84.283B]


Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Performance 
Measures--Comprehensive Centers Program

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

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance 
measures.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
(Assistant Secretary) announces priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and performance measures under the Comprehensive Centers (CC) program. 
The Assistant Secretary may use these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and performance measures for competitions in FY 2019 and 
subsequent years. We take this action to focus Federal technical 
assistance to address State-defined needs. We intend these priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and performance measures to increase the 
effectivess and efficiency of service delivery to all States.

DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance 
measures are effective May 6, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Okahara, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E106, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-6930. Email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Program: The CC program supports the establishment of 
not less than 20 CCs to provide capacity-building services to State 
educational agencies (SEAs), regional educational agencies (REAs), 
local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools that improve educational 
outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, and improve the 
quality of instruction.
    Program Authority: Section 203 of the Educational Technical 
Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and performance measures (NPP) for this program in the 
Federal Register on September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49031). That notice 
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the 
particular priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance 
measures.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, we 
received 26 comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and performance measures.
    We group major issues according to subject matter. Generally, we do 
not address technical and other minor changes.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: There are differences between the 
NPP and this notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
performance measures (NFP). An analysis of the comments and of any 
changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance 
measures since publication of the NPP follows.

Proposed Priority and Program Requirements--Regional Centers

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the CCs should support States 
in the effective application of research in the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student 
Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESEA), Title III-funded initiatives involving 
English learners and immigrant students.
    Discussion: Although we have not chosen to require Regional Centers 
or the National Center to support States in the implementation of ESEA 
Title III, nothing in this NFP precludes Centers from working with 
States on specific initiatives related to English learners. While we 
would encourage this work, we believe it is important to allow Centers 
the flexibility to be responsive to State needs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that we define the terms 
``intensive'' and ``targeted'' capacity-building services. Another 
commenter recommended inclusion of definitions for short-, medium-, and 
long-term outcomes. Another commenter supported the proposed definition 
of ``capacity building.''
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support and requests for 
clarification. We defined ``intensive'' and ``targeted'' capacity-
building services and ``outcomes'' in the NPP, and clarify and finalize 
them in this NFP. We agree that expanding the definitions of short-, 
medium-, and long-term outcomes to include estimated timeframes can aid 
applicants in systematically planning, monitoring, and evaluating 
services. We expect applicants to use these definitions to drive 
decisions on proposed resources (e.g., staff) and proposed types of 
services (e.g., coaching). Furthermore, we expect applicants to develop 
clear, specific, and actionable evaluation questions that address the 
components, interrelationships, and timeframes (short-, medium-, and 
long-term) in the FY 2019 CC Logic Model. We also clarify ``intensive'' 
and seek to align the definition with the FY 2019 CC Logic Model.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of ``outcome'' to include 
differentiation of ``short-term, ``medium-term,'' and ``long-term'' 
outcomes. ``Short-term outcomes'' means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after one year. ``Medium-term outcomes'' means 
effects of receiving capacity-building services after two to three 
years. ``Long-term outcomes'' means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after four or more years. We have revised the 
definition of ``intensive'' to clarify that the term means assistance, 
as well as ``periodic reflection, continuous feedback, and use of 
evidence-based improvement strategies.'' We have also revised the 
definition of ``intensive'' to clarify that this category of capacity-
building services should ``result in medium-term and long-term 
outcomes.''
    Comment: Several commenters raised concerns about CCs assisting 
States in addressing audit findings and corrective actions as a result 
of the Department's monitoring. A few commenters stated that Centers 
should not be required to ensure that States comply with Department 
regulations or enforce the Department's corrective actions as a result 
of monitoring and recommended clarifying the scope of the requirement. 
Some commenters also indicated that this requirement may negatively 
impact trust and working relationships between CCs and their respective 
clients and recipients. One commenter sought clarification on whether 
the requirement specified certain monitoring or audit findings.
    Discussion: We agree that CCs should not enforce, and are 
prohibited from enforcing, compliance with Department-issued corrective 
actions or resolve audit findings as a result of the Department's 
monitoring. Further, we agree that it is outside the scope of the CC 
program for CCs to provide technical assistance on non-programmatic or 
repayment issues that arise in audits and other oversight reports. 
However, we believe CCs can, at the request of the client, identify and 
carry out capacity-building services that help States address 
corrective actions or audit findings that are programmatic in nature 
(e.g., developing policies and

[[Page 13123]]

procedures to improve equitable resource allocation).
    Changes: We have revised Priority 1--Regional Centers to clarify 
that CCs are permitted to provide, in response to a request from a 
client, capacity-building services designed to to help States address 
corrective actions resulting from audit findings and monitoring 
conducted by the Department.
    Comment: Multiple commenters raised concerns about the Program 
Requirements for Regional Centers (6) for a full-time Project Director. 
One commenter agreed with the full-time Project Director requirement. 
Several commenters stated a full-time Project Director would reduce the 
budget available to hire qualified experts or consultants. Some 
commenters also emphasized that having a full-time Project Director may 
limit the Project Director from engaging in other work that might 
benefit the clients and recipients to be served. One commenter stated 
that some of the most talented and qualified individuals may not be 
available full-time and therefore could not serve as Project Directors.
    Multiple commenters recommended changing the full-time Project 
Director requirement to 0.6-0.75 full-time equivalency (FTE) or to 
reduce the requirement significantly. Alternatively, one commenter 
recommended splitting the full-time Project Director requirement with a 
deputy director or senior advisor, noting the management structure in 
the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) program as an example.
    Discussion: We recognize the important role that Project Directors 
play in carrying out the priorities and requirements of the CC program. 
We appreciate the commenters' concerns and recognize that, in some 
cases, a full-time Project Director may hamper a CC's ability to 
recruit and retain experts to meet State needs. Accordingly, to allow 
the Centers more flexibility, we are revising the requirement to 
provide Centers the option to have one person serve as Project Director 
on a nearly full-time basis or to have Co-Project Directors serving on 
a half-time basis. An applicant must be able to demonstrate that the 
proposed Project Director or proposed Co-Project Directors are able to 
lead and manage all aspects of the Center's work.
    Changes: We have revised the Program Requirements for Regional 
Centers (6) Project Director requirement to give applicants two 
options: (i) One at minimum 0.75 FTE Project Director or (ii) two at 
minimum 0.5 FTE Co-Project Directors.
    Comment: Multiple commenters requested to remove the requirement 
that the Project Director be located in the Center's assigned region.
    Several commenters expressed that qualified Project Directors may 
not live in a State served by the Regional Center but may be physically 
closer to clients served by that Regional Center. One commenter stated 
that a Project Director may connect remotely to their respective 
clients and recipients, and therefore does not need to reside in the 
region.
    Other commenters expressed support for the Department's requirement 
to have Project Directors located in their assigned regions.
    Discussion: We appreciate both the commenters who supported this 
requirement and the commenters that believe the Department should 
remove it.
    Upon further examination of this issue, for maximum flexibility, we 
are removing the Project Director residency requirement and revising 
the Application Requirements for All Centers (6) regarding the Regional 
Centers' communications plans. We believe these changes will provide 
the flexibility that some commenters sought in the operation of their 
Centers while continuing to emphasize our belief that cultivating in-
person relationships with clients, recipients, and partners that are 
knowledgeable of the identified needs for that region is critical to 
the successful operation of any Regional Center.
    Changes: We have removed the Project Director residency requirement 
under the Program Requirements for Regional Centers (6). In place of 
the requirement, we have revised the Application Requirement for All 
Centers (5) to request that an applicant describe its plan to 
continuously cultivate in-person relationships with clients, 
recipients, and partners that are knowledgeable of the identified needs 
for that region.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Regional Center staff should be 
located in the region.
    Discussion: We disagree with the commenter. To ensure maximum 
flexibility in the successful operation of the Centers, we believe that 
Regional Center staff should not be required to be located in the 
region. To this end, we have also removed the residency requirement for 
the Project Director. Key personnel must, however, be able to provide 
on-site services at the intensity and duration appropriate to achieve 
agreed-upon milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in State 
service plans.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether the 
applicant needs to be physically based in the region. A couple of 
commenters supported the requirement that the entity be physically 
located in the region.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters that supported the 
requirement for the applicant to be physically located in the region. 
We reaffirm the requirement that the applicant must be located in the 
region to which it applies.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commentor sought clarification on who the client is 
for the Regional Centers.
    Discussion: We clarify that the client refers to the Chief State 
School Officer (CSSO) or his or her designee.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that, under the Proposed 
Requirements for Regional Centers (2) and (4), LEAs could request 
intensive services from Regional Centers without prior consultation or 
approval from the CSSO or designees (clients). Some commenters agreed 
with providing capacity-building services to LEAs, in collaboration 
with SEAs, to implement programs funded under ESEA.
    Discussion: We appreciate this concern and clarify that Regional 
Centers, consistent with Program Requirements for Regional Centers (1), 
must demonstrate that they have consulted and garnered commitment from 
CSSOs or their designees prior to carrying out capacity-building 
services. CSSOs or their designees are the Regional Centers' clients 
and will work with their respective Center to identify recipients of 
services (i.e., teams at the SEA-, REA-, LEA-, or school-level).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the Department should 
preserve the FY 2012 Regional Center configuration outlined in the CC 
notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2013, published in 
the Federal Register on June 6, 2012 (77 FR 33564).
    Discussion: While we appreciate the commenters' request to preserve 
the FY 2012 regional configuration, we believe that by reducing the 
number of States assigned to each Regional Center, Regional Centers can 
more effectively support their assigned States in implementing and 
scaling-up of evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed that the proposed FY 2019 
regional configuration of State

[[Page 13124]]

assignments would be detrimental to their States' ability to implement 
State and Federal programs because they have built long-standing, 
collaborative relationships with other States.
    Similarly, two State commenters requested to stay in their existing 
FY 2012 regional configuration in order to limit disruption to working 
relationships among SEAs.
    Discussion: We recognize the importance of positive, collaborative 
working relationships among States. However, nothing in the priority or 
the requirements precludes any State from partnering with another 
State, or from working with the National Center to request capacity-
building services involving another State regardless of regional 
assignment. Nevertheless, we understand the commenters' concern and 
believe that should a State determine, after earnest negotiation with 
its assigned Regional Center, that the Regional Center is not able to 
meet its needs (e.g., the Regional Center is not able to secure 
appropriate experts to meet a State's needs), a State should have 
flexibility to request to be assigned to a different Regional Center. 
To that end, the Department intends to include in the FY 2019 notice 
inviting applications for this program the provisions under Flexibility 
and Requirements for Regional Center Assignments established in the 
notice of final priorities, requirements, and selection criteria-
Comprehensive Centers Program published in the Federal Register on June 
6, 2012 (77 FR 33573), which allow an SEA, in any fiscal year, to 
indicate to the Department its desire to affiliate with a different 
Regional Center, regardless of the geographic location of that Center. 
A State could exercise this option once in any two-year period.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Multiple commenters submitted alternative regional 
configurations. Some commenters recommended grouping States that have 
similar characteristics, such as school-age populations, proportion of 
economically disadvantaged students, and comparable increased costs to 
service rural areas. Other commenters expressed support for the FY 2019 
regional configuration.
    Discussion: We appreciate the expressions of support for the 
proposed FY 2019 regional configuration. We believe that such regional 
configurations would increase administrative and travel costs, 
ultimately resulting in reduced services to States. Furthermore, the 
National Center will have the responsibility to convene States--
including, as appropriate, those States that share similar 
characteristics so that such States can discuss common high-leverage 
problems (e.g., addressing educator shortages in sparsely populated 
areas). For these reasons, we decline to revise our proposed 
configuration to assign Regional Centers to non-contiguous States that 
share similar characteristics.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that Regional Centers that serve 
sparsely populated States will not have adequate funding, resulting in 
limited access to resources. The same commenters requested that we 
provide adequate funding to those Regional Centers to account for the 
increased costs of service delivery in areas of sparse population.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters' request to ensure that 
Regional Centers that serve rural populations are funded at an adequate 
level. In order to ensure that Regional Centers can meet the unique 
needs of clients and recipients in their assigned region, we plan to 
institute a minimum award amount of $1,000,000 for each Regional Center 
contingent on CC funding. This award amount should enable Regional 
Centers that serve rural areas to account for the increased cost 
burdens of service delivery. In addition, and consistent with section 
203 of the ETAA (20 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), we consider the school-age 
population, proportion of economically disadvantaged students, and the 
increased costs of service delivery in areas of sparse population when 
determining the amount of funds to make available to each Regional 
Center.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed a concern that Regional Centers 
serving sparsely populated States may not have access to appropriate 
experts needed to carry out effective capacity-building services.
    Discussion: Consistent with the Application Requirements for All 
Centers (3), all entities must be able to demonstrate in their 
application and throughout the grant period that they can effectively 
secure the services of experts and other consultants to address 
identified and emerging State needs. Nothing in Priority 1--Regional 
Centers or the Program Requirements for Regional Centers precludes 
Regional Centers from securing appropriate expertise, such as through 
subgrants or contracts, with entities or individuals in order to carry 
out capacity-building services.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that Regional Centers should be 
aligned with the RELs.
    Discussion: Consistent with the ETAA, in establishing CC regions, 
the Department considers their alignment with the 10 geographic regions 
served by the RELs established under section 941(h) of the Educational 
Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994 (see 
section 203(a)(2)(A) of the ETAA). To facilitate collaboration among 
RELs and CCs, we believe further alignment between the Regional Centers 
configuration will increase the likelihood that coordination among 
capacity-building services occurs.
    Changes: We have revised Region 3 to serve Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands. We have revised Region 7 to serve Alabama, Florida, and 
Mississippi. We have revised Region 11 to serve Nebraska, North Dakota, 
South Dakota, and Wyoming. We have revised Region 12 to serve Colorado, 
Kansas, and Missouri. We have revised Region 13 to serve Bureau of 
Indian Education (BIE), New Mexico, and Oklahoma. We have revised 
Region 15 to serve Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that, in addition to providing 
intensive capacity-building services, Regional Centers should also 
provide targeted capacity-building services.
    Discussion: We believe allowing Regional Centers to provide 
targeted capacity-building services could result in duplication of 
efforts and that the National Center is best positioned to provide 
targeted capacity-building services to eligible recipients with like 
needs. States also have the option to request services directly from 
the National Center.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters supported the Department in directing CCs 
to provide assistance in the areas of evidence-based practices, 
professional development models, and unique issues facing rural and 
remote districts and schools.
    Discussion: We appreciate and share the commenters' interest in 
assisting States in the implementation of evidence-based practices, 
professional development models, and support to sparsely populated 
areas.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that although the proposed priorities 
may decrease duplication of services provided by the Regional Centers 
and the National Center (e.g., the National Center, by providing 
learning opportunities on English language learners nationally in 
comparison to

[[Page 13125]]

multiple Regional Centers providing similar learning opportunities for 
their respective States), they may also increase bureaucracy, 
explaining that if the Content Centers established by the FY 2012 
Comprehensive Centers competition were preserved, such services could 
be provided to address State issues.
    Discussion: We maintain that the FY 2019 configuration enables 
greater flexibility for Centers to provide differentiated and 
coordinated supports to all States. By eliminating the seven Content 
Centers, we believe that we will minimize duplication of resource 
development and learning opportunities to States.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that Regional Centers must have 
appropriate expertise, including, but not limited to, expertise in 
balancing budgets.
    Discussion: We agree that Regional Centers should have this 
expertise. Pursuant to Application Requirements for All Centers (3)(i)-
(iv), applicants must demonstrate expertise in the following areas: 
Managing budgets, performance management processes, root-cause 
analysis, and monitoring and evaluation.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters sought clarification on the differences 
between the REL program and the CC program.
    Discussion: The CC program emphasizes the delivery of capacity-
building services that support implementation of State-identified 
initiatives (i.e., conducting a needs assessment, developing a logic 
model, identifying evidence-based strategies, practices, and 
interventions, planning for implementation and implementing evidence-
based strategies, practices, and interventions, and monitoring for 
continous improvement). In contrast to the CC program, the REL program 
emphasizes applied research, development, and dissemination of 
educational innovations, and evaluation of the effectiveness of 
educational innovations. REL services assist States, districts, and 
other stakeholders in conducting applied research, providing support 
and training for the application of research to education problems, and 
disseminating credible, up[hyphen]to[hyphen]date research on the 
efficacy of educational innovations. For more information, visit 
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns that requiring, as part 
of the application, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with entities 
that operate RELs in the region to which they are applying may unfairly 
advantage those entities that currently operate an REL or introduce 
conflicts of interest, such as an entity not agreeing to execute MOUs 
for competing entities prior to award.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that expressed concern 
that requiring an entity to submit an MOU as part of its application 
may introduce conflicts of interest for any entity that currently 
operates an REL.
    Changes: We have removed Application Requirements for All Centers 
(4). We have revised the Program Requirements for Regional Centers (5) 
to include submission of copies of MOU(s) with REL(s) and other 
Department-funded technical assistance providers within 90 days of 
receiving an award.
    Comment: Another commenter sought clarification on how the 
Department or CCs would conduct needs assessments to determine State 
priorities.
    Discussion: We clarify that the Department will not be conducting 
needs assessments. Rather, as outlined in Application Requirements for 
All Centers (3)(iii) and Program Requirements for Regional Centers (1), 
Regional Centers must work with their assigned States to conduct needs 
assessments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Another commenter expressed that the CCs may have a 
significant positive impact for small businesses and their employees.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that small businesses and 
their employees may benefit from this program. Consistent with Program 
Requirements for Regional Centers (5), Regional Centers are required to 
identify and enter into partnership agreements with, among other 
entities, businesses and industry with the purpose of supporting States 
in the implementation and scale-up of evidence-based programs, 
practices, and interventions, as well as reducing duplication of 
services to States.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters asked if Regional Centers could make 
resources or staff available to all States should Regional Centers or 
their staff have expertise in a specific area.
    Discussion: Nothing precludes a State from requesting that its 
assigned Regional Center procure experts that may be affiliated with 
another Regional Center or National Center. The National Center, 
however, has the sole responsibility to develop and widely disseminate 
resources to all States.
    Changes: None.

Proposed Priority and Program Requirements--National Center

    Comment: One commenter supported the Department's emphasis on 
helping States serve students from low-income families.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support on emphasizing 
services to States that serve students from low-income families.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters contended that the services to be offered 
by the National Center are duplicative and would not add significant 
value. One commenter added that the education field does not lack the 
types of resources or services that the National Center may provide. 
Other commenters expressed support for the types of services the 
National Center would provide.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the types of 
services the National Center would provide. We further note that, 
contrary to the assertion of some commenters, the National Center is 
specifically designed to minimize duplication of services in the CC 
program and to provide demand-driven resources, that, by definition, 
are unlikely to be available elsewhere and thus will be of significant 
value to State clients. The National Center will deliver services to 
State clients and identified recipients to address common high-leverage 
programs, implementation challenges, and emerging needs, such as but 
not limited to expanding school choice. Accordingly, the National 
Center will only create resources that address common client needs, 
identified in coordination with Regional Centers. The National Center 
will also be responsible for coordinating experts, internal and 
external to the CC network, to provide targeted capacity-building 
services to States, as defined in this notice.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters sought clarification on whether there will 
be a centralized place that displays upcoming events and opportunities 
from Regional Centers and if any State or Regional Center may 
participate in events or opportunities carried out by the National 
Center.
    Discussion: The Department is always trying to disseminate 
information more widely. We note that the Program Requirements for the 
National Center (2), (4), and (5) outline requirements to maintain the 
CC network website and disseminate information. This website will 
provide all States and Regional Centers with access to upcoming events 
and State service plans, as appropriate.

[[Page 13126]]

Regional Centers may participate in National Center activities, at the 
request of the client or Department.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter sought clarification on Regional and 
National Center collaboration.
    Discussion: Program Requirements for Regional Centers (4) requires 
Regional Centers to collaborate with the National Center to support 
client and recipient participation in learning opportunities (e.g., 
communities of practices, leadership academies, and convenings). The 
cooperative agreement will outline specific requirements regarding 
collaboration between Regional Centers and the National Center.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the National Center should not 
be charged with addressing audit findings.
    Discussion: We agree that the National Center should not be 
responsible for addressing or enforcing the resolution of corrective 
actions or audit findings as a result of the Department's monitoring. 
Further, we agree that it is outside the scope of the CC program for 
CC's to provide technical assistance on non-programmatic or repayment 
issues that arise in audits and other oversight reports. However, we 
believe that identifying common services to help address findings from 
finalized Department monitoring reports or audit findings related to 
programmatic issues is an appropriate role for the National Center.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Another commenter stated that the National Center is 
counterintuitive and not useful for States that believe strongly in 
States' rights and local control.
    Discussion: We agree that State and local control are important in 
our Nation's education system. While the National Center is intended to 
provide targeted and universal capacity-building services to all 
States, participation in those opportunities and events is entirely 
voluntary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested a second National Center that 
would focus exclusively on evidence-based programs and practices.
    Discussion: While we appreciate the suggestion, we reject the 
commenter's recommendation to create a second National Center. All 
Regional Centers must work with States to identify, implement, and 
sustain evidence-based practices that support improved educator and 
student outcomes. To that end, the National Center will help develop 
and disseminate resources that support the use of evidence-based 
practices. Therefore, we believe a second National Center focused 
exclusively on evidence-based practices would be duplicative.
    Changes: None.

Proposed Program Logic Model

    Comment: Several commenters suggested revisions to the proposed 
logic model, including: Adding increased equity and reduction of 
disproportionalities; changing improved educational opportunities to 
include access to current and future learning experiences for the 
child's developmental stage and back-filling learning opportunities; 
including that learning relies on funds of knowledge; modifying 
disadvantaged student to consider hindrances to excelling at school; 
and modifying improved learning outcomes to include expanded outcomes 
beyond academics.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions. The FY 2019 
CC Logic Model places a renewed focus on economically disadvantaged 
students and schools and implementing comprehensive support and 
improvement activities and targeted support and improvement activities 
under section 1111(d) of the ESEA as required by the ETAA. Nothing 
precludes CCs, however, from providing capacity-building services to 
support the administration and implementation of programs authorized 
under the ESEA for all students. Accordingly, we reject the 
recommendations to modify the logic model in order to account for all 
potential services the CCs may provide for States and clients.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that there is a disconnect in the 
logic model target population of disadvantaged and low-income students 
and the requirements language, such as mentioning students from low-
income families and disadvantaged students in the FY 2019 CC Logic 
Model and only mentioning students from low-income families in Priority 
1--Regional Centers.
    Discussion: We share the commenters' concern to align the FY 2019 
CC Logic Model with the appropriate target populations and seek to 
align the FY 2019 CC Logic Model with the priorities described in this 
notice. If Centers provide appropriate capacity-building services to 
SEAs, LEAs, REAs, and schools, then individual and organizational 
capacity to implement school improvement programs may improve. If SEAs, 
LEAs, REAs, and schools improve the implementation of school 
improvement programs (medium-term outcomes), then educational 
opportunities for all students may improve (long-term outcomes). In 
order to clarify and align target populations, we are revising Priority 
1--Regional Centers to include ``disadvantaged students.'' The revision 
makes the Priority 1Regional Centers consistent with the mid- and long-
term outcome target populations of ``disadvantaged and low-income 
students'' described in the FY 2019 CC Logic Model.
    Changes: We have modified Priority 1--Regional Centers (1) to 
include ``disadvantaged students.''

Final Priorities

    This notice contains two priorities. The Assistant Secretary may 
use one or both of these priorities for the FY 2019 CC program 
competition or for any subsequent competitions.

Priority 1--Regional Centers

    Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate the following--
    Regional Centers must provide high-quality intensive capacity-
building services to State clients and recipients to identify, 
implement, and sustain effective evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 
77.1) programs, practices, and interventions that support improved 
educator and student outcomes. As appropriate, capacity-building 
services must assist clients and recipients in: (1) Carrying out 
Consolidated State Plans approved under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 
2015 (ESEA), with preference given to the implementation and scaling up 
of evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that directly 
benefit recipients that have disadvantaged students or high percentages 
or numbers of students from low-income families as referenced in Title 
I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA secs. 1113(a)(5) and 1111(d)) and 
recipients that are implementing comprehensive support and improvement 
activities or targeted support and improvement activities as referenced 
in Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)); (2) implementing 
and scaling-up evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions 
that address the unique educational obstacles faced by rural 
populations; (3) identifying and carrying out capacity-building 
services to clients that help States address corrective actions or 
results from audit findings and monitoring, conducted by the 
Department, that are programmatic in nature, at the request of the 
client; and (4) working with the National Center to identify trends and 
best practices, and develop cost-effective strategies to make their 
work available to as many REAs,

[[Page 13127]]

LEAs, and schools in need of support as possible.
    Applicants must propose to operate a Regional Center in one of the 
following regions:

Region 1: Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont
Region 2: Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island
Region 3: Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Region 4: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania
Region 5: Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia
Region 6: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Region 7: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi
Region 8: Indiana, Michigan, Ohio
Region 9: Illinois, Iowa
Region 10: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Region 11: Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming
Region 12: Colorado, Kansas, Missouri
Region 13: Bureau of Indian Education, New Mexico, Oklahoma
Region 14: Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas
Region 15: Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah
Region 16: Alaska, Oregon, Washington
Region 17: Idaho, Montana
Region 18: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated 
States of Micronesia, Guam, Palau
Region 19: American Samoa, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall Islands

Priority 2--National Center

    Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate the following--
    The National Center must provide high-quality universal (e.g., 
policy briefs) and targeted (e.g., peer-to-peer exchanges and 
communities of practice that convene SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools on a 
particular topic) capacity-building services to address the following: 
Common high-leverage problems identified in Regional Center State 
service plans (as outlined in the Program Requirements for the National 
Center (1)), common services to help address findings from finalized 
Department monitoring reports or audit findings, common implementation 
challenges faced by States and Regional Centers, and emerging national 
education trends.
    As appropriate, universal and targeted capacity-building services 
must assist Regional Center clients and recipients to: (1) Implement 
approved ESEA Consolidated State Plans, with preference given to 
implementing and scaling evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions that directly benefit entities that have high percentages 
or numbers of students from low-income families as referenced in Title 
I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1113(a)(5) and 1111(d)) and recipients 
that are implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities 
or targeted support and improvement activities as referenced in Title 
I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d)); and (2) implement and scale 
up evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions that address 
the unique educational obstacles faced by rural populations. The work 
of the National Center must include the implementation of effective 
strategies for reaching and supporting as many SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and 
schools in need of services as possible.

Types of Priorities

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for 
the Comprehensive Centers program.
    Program Requirements for Regional Centers: Applicants that receive 
grants under this program must:
    (1) Develop State service plans annually in consultation with each 
State's Chief State School Officers that includes the following 
elements: High-leverage problems to be addressed, phase of 
implementation (e.g., needs assessment), capacity-building services to 
be delivered, key personnel responsible, key Department-funded 
technical assistance partners, milestones, outputs, outcomes, and, if 
appropriate, fidelity measures. The annual State service plans must be 
an update to the Regional Center's five-year plan submitted as part of 
the Regional Center's application. The annual State service plan 
elements must also correspond to the relevant sections of the FY 2019 
CC Logic Model.
    (2) Develop and implement an effective personnel management system 
that enables the Regional Center to efficiently obtain and retain the 
services of nationally recognized content experts and other consultants 
with direct experience working with SEAs, REAs, and LEAs. Personnel 
must demonstrate that they have the appropriate expertise to deliver 
quality, intensive services that meet client and recipient needs 
similar to those in the region to be served.
    (3) Develop and implement an effective communications system that 
enables routine and ongoing exploration of client and recipient needs 
as well as feedback on services provided. The system must enable 
routine monitoring of progress toward agreed-upon outcomes, outputs, 
and milestones; periodic assessment of client satisfaction; and timely 
identification of changes in State contexts that may impact the success 
of the project. The communications system must include processes for 
outreach activities (e.g., regular promotion of services and products 
to clients and potential and current recipients, particularly at the 
local level), regular engagement and coordination with the National 
Center and partner organizations (e.g., other federally funded 
technical assistance providers), use of feedback loops across 
organizational levels (Federal, State, and local), and regular 
engagement of stakeholders involved in or impacted by proposed 
services.
    (4) Collaborate with the National Center to support client and 
recipient participation in learning opportunities (e.g., multi-State 
and cross-regional peer-to-peer exchanges on high-leverage problems) 
and support participation of Regional Center staff in learning 
opportunities (e.g., peer-to-peer exchanges on effective coaching 
systems), with the goal of reaching as many REAs, LEAs, and schools in 
need of services as possible while also providing high-quality 
services.
    (5) Identify and enter into partnership agreements with national 
organizations, businesses, and industry for the purpose of supporting 
States in the implementation and scaling-up of evidence-based programs, 
practices, and interventions, as well as reducing duplication of 
services to States. Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, 
provide copies of MOU(s) with the REL(s) in the region that the Center 
serves and Department-funded technical assistance providers that are 
charged

[[Page 13128]]

with supporting comprehensive, systemic changes in States or 
Department-funded technical assistance providers with particular 
expertise (e.g., early learning or instruction for English language 
learners).
    (6) Be located in the region the Center serves. The Project 
Director must be capable of managing all aspects of the Center and be 
either at minimum 0.75 FTE or there must be two Co-Project Directors 
each at minimum 0.5 FTE. The Project Director or Co-Project Directors 
and key personnel must also be able to provide on-site services at the 
intensity, duration, and modality appropriate to achieving agreed-upon 
milestones, outputs, and outcomes described in annual State service 
plans.
    (7) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, demonstrate 
that it has secured client and partner commitments to carry out 
proposed State service plans.

Program Requirements for the National Center

    (1) Develop a national service plan annually in consultation with 
the Department and Regional Centers. The national service plan must 
take into account commonalities in identified high-leverage problems in 
State service plans, finalized Department monitoring and audit 
findings, implementation challenges faced by Regional Centers and 
States, and emerging national education trends. The annual national 
service plan must be an update to the Center's five-year plan submitted 
as part of the Center's application. The annual national service plan 
must include, at a minimum, the following elements: High-leverage 
problems to be addressed, capacity-building services to be delivered, 
key personnel responsible, milestones, outputs, and outcome measures. 
The annual national service plan must also include evidence that the 
Center involved Regional Centers in identifying targeted and universal 
services that complement Regional Center services to improve client and 
recipient capacity.
    (2) Maintain the CC network website with an easy-to-navigate design 
that meets government or industry-recognized standards for 
accessibility.
    (3) Develop and implement an effective personnel management system 
that enables the Center to retain and efficiently obtain the services 
of education practitioners, researchers, policy professionals, and 
other consultants with direct experience with SEAs, REAs, and LEAs. 
Personnel must have a proven record of publishing in peer-reviewed 
journals, presenting at national conferences, and/or delivering quality 
adult learning experiences that meet client and recipient needs.
    (4) Disseminate information (e.g., instructional videos, toolkits, 
and briefs) and evidence-based practices to a variety of education 
stakeholders, including the general public, via multiple mechanisms 
such as the CC network website, social media, and other channels as 
appropriate.
    (5) Disseminate State service plans, Center annual performance 
reports, and other materials through the CC network website and other 
channels as appropriate.
    (6) Collaborate with Regional Centers to implement learning 
opportunities for recipients (e.g., multi-State and cross-regional 
peer-to-peer exchanges on high-leverage problems) and develop learning 
opportunities for Regional Center staff to address implementation 
challenges (e.g., peer-to-peer exchanges on effective coaching systems 
for English language learners).
    (7) Develop and implement an effective communications system that 
enables routine and ongoing exploration of Regional Center client and 
recipient needs. The system must enable routine monitoring of progress 
toward agreed-upon outcomes, outputs, and milestones; periodic 
assessment of client satisfaction; and timely identification of changes 
in Federal or State contexts that may impact success of the project. 
The communications system must include processes for outreach 
activities (e.g., regular promotion of services and products to clients 
and potential and current recipients), use of feedback loops across 
organizational levels (Federal, State, and local), regular engagement 
and coordination with the Department, Regional Centers, and partner 
organizations (e.g., federally funded technical assistance providers), 
and engagement of stakeholders involved in or impacted by proposed 
school improvement activities.
    (8) Identify potential partners and enter into partnership 
agreements with other federally funded technical assistance providers, 
industry, national associations, and other organizations to support the 
implementation and scaling-up of evidence-based programs, practices, 
and interventions.
    (9) Identify a Project Director that is either at minimum 0.75 FTE 
or two Co-Project Directors at minimum 0.5 FTE capable of managing all 
aspects of the CC.
    (10) Within 90 days of receiving funding for an award, demonstrate 
that it has secured client and partner commitments to carry out the 
proposed national service plan.

Final Application Requirements

All Centers

    (1) Present applicable State, regional, and local data 
demonstrating the current needs related to building capacity to 
implement and scale up evidence-based programs, practices, and 
interventions. Reference, as appropriate, information related to the 
Department's finalized monitoring and audit findings.
    (2) Demonstrate expert knowledge of statutory requirements, 
regulations, and policies related to programs authorized under ESEA and 
current education issues and policy initiatives for supporting the 
implementation and scaling up of evidence-based programs, practices, 
and interventions.
    (3) Consistent with the priorities and requirements for this 
program, demonstrate expertise and experience in the following areas:
    (i) Managing budgets; selecting, coordinating, and overseeing 
multiple consultant and sub-contractor teams; and leading large-scale 
projects to deliver tools, training, and other services to governments, 
agencies, communities, businesses, schools, or other organizations.
    (ii) Designing and implementing performance management processes 
with staff, subcontractors, and consultants that enable effective 
hiring, developing, supervising, and retaining a team of subject-matter 
experts and professional staff.
    (iii) Identifying problems and conducting root-cause analysis; 
developing and implementing logic models, organizational assessments, 
strategic plans, and process improvements; and sustaining the use of 
evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions.
    (iv) Monitoring and evaluating activities, including, but not 
limited to: Compiling data, conducting interviews, developing tools to 
enhance capacity-building approaches, conducting data analysis using 
statistical software, interpreting results from data using widely 
acceptable quantitative and qualitative methods, and developing 
evaluation reports.
    (4) Describe the current research on adult learning principles, 
coaching, and implementation science that will inform the applicant's 
capacity-building services, including how the applicant will promote 
self-sufficiency and sustainability of State-led school improvement 
activities.
    (5) Present a proposed communications plan for working with 
appropriate levels of the education system (e.g., SEAs, REAs, LEAs, 
and/or schools) to ensure there is

[[Page 13129]]

communication between each level and that there are processes in place 
to support, and continuously assess, the implementation of evidence-
based programs, practices, and interventions. The applicant must 
describe how it will engage in meaningful consultation with a broad 
range of stakeholders (e.g., principals, teachers, families, community 
members). The ideal applicant will propose effective strategies for 
receiving ongoing and timely input on the needs of its clients and the 
usefulness of its services and describe how it will continuously 
cultivate in-person relationships with clients, recipients, and 
partners that are knowledgeable of the identified needs for that 
region.
    (6) Present a proposed evaluation plan for the project. The 
evaluation plan must describe the criteria for determining the extent 
to which: Milestones were met; outputs were met; recipient outcomes 
(short-term, mid-term, and long-term) were met; and capacity-building 
services proposed in State service plans were implemented as intended.
    (7) Present a logic model informed by research or evaluation 
findings that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) 
explaining how the project is likely to improve or achieve relevant and 
expected outcomes. This logic model must align with the FY 2019 CC 
Logic Model, communicate how the project will achieve its expected 
outcomes (short-term, mid-term, and long-term), and provide a framework 
for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project 
consistent with the applicant's evaluation plan. Include a description 
of underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and 
theories, as well as the relationships and linkages among these 
variables, and any empirical support for this framework.
    (8) Include an assurance that, if awarded a grant, the applicant 
will assist the Department with the transfer of pertinent resources and 
products and maintain the continuity of services to States during the 
transition to this new award period, as appropriate, including by 
working with the FY 2012 Comprehensive Center on Building State 
Capacity and Productivity to migrate products, resources, and other 
relevant project information to the National Center's Comprehensive 
Center network website.

Regional Centers

    In addition to meeting the Application Requirements for All 
Centers, a Regional Center applicant must--
    (1) describe the proposed approach to intensive capacity-building 
services, including identification of intended recipients and alignment 
of proposed capacity-building services to meet client needs. The 
applicant must also describe how it intends to measure the readiness of 
clients and recipients to work with the applicant; measure client and 
recipient capacity across the four capacity-building dimensions, 
including available resources; and measure the ability of the client 
and recipients to build capacity at the local level.

National Center

    In addition to meeting the application requirements for all 
Centers, a National Center applicant must--
    (1) Demonstrate expertise and experience in leading digital 
engagement strategies to attract and sustain involvement of education 
stakeholders, including, but not limited to: Implementing a robust web 
and social media presence, overseeing customer relations management, 
providing editorial support, and collecting and analyzing web 
analytics.
    (2) Describe the intended recipients of and the proposed approach 
to targeted capacity-building services, including how the applicant 
intends to collaborate with Regional Centers to identify potential 
recipients and how many it has the capacity to reach; measure the 
readiness and capacity of potential recipients across the four 
dimensions of capacity-building services; and continuously engage 
potential recipients over the five-year period.
    (3) Describe the intended recipients of and the proposed approach 
to universal capacity-building services, including how many recipients 
it plans to reach and how the applicant intends to: Measure the quality 
of the products and services developed to address common high-leverage 
problems; support recipients in the selection, implementation, and 
monitoring of evidence-based practices and interventions; and improve 
knowledge of emerging national education trends.

Final Definitions

    The Assistant Secretary establishes the following definitions for 
the purposes of the Comprehensive Centers program. We may apply one or 
more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in 
effect.
    Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an 
individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous 
improvement and achieve expected outcomes.
    The four dimensions of capacity-building services are:
    (1) Human capacity means development or improvement of individual 
knowledge, skills, technical expertise, and ability to adapt and be 
resilient to policy and leadership changes.
    (2) Organizational capacity means structures that support clear 
communication and a shared understanding of an organization's visions 
and goals, and delineated individual roles and responsibilities in 
functional areas.
    (3) Policy capacity means structures that support alignment, 
differentiation, or enactment of local, State, and Federal policies and 
initiatives.
    (4) Resource capacity means tangible materials and assets that 
support alignment and use of Federal, State, private, and local funds.
    The three tiers of capacity-building services are:
    (1) Intensive means assistance often provided on-site and requiring 
a stable, ongoing relationship between the Regional Center and its 
clients and recipients, as well as periodic reflection, continuous 
feedback, and use of evidence-based improvement strategies. This 
category of capacity-building services should support increased 
recipient capacity in more than one capacity dimension and result in 
medium-term and long-term outcomes at one or more system levels.
    (2) Targeted means assistance based on needs common to multiple 
clients and recipients and not extensively individualized. A 
relationship is established between the recipient(s), the National 
Center, and Regional Center(s) as appropriate. This category of 
capacity-building services includes one-time, labor-intensive events, 
such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting national or regional 
conferences. It can also include less labor-intensive events that 
extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of 
conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around 
the needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can 
also be considered targeted capacity-building services.
    (3) Universal means assistance and information provided to 
independent users through their own initiative, involving minimal 
interaction with National Center staff and including one-time, invited 
or offered conference presentations by National Center staff. This 
category of capacity-building services also includes information or 
products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, policy briefs, or research 
syntheses, downloaded from the Center's website by independent users. 
Brief communications by National

[[Page 13130]]

Center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 
considered universal services.
    High-leverage problems means problems that (1) if addressed could 
result in substantial improvements for many students or for key 
subgroups of students as defined in ESEA sections 1111(c) and (d); (2) 
are priorities for education policymakers, particularly at the State 
level; and (3) require intensive capacity-building services to achieve 
outcomes that address the problem.
    Milestone means an activity that must be completed. Examples 
include: Identifying key district administrators responsible for 
professional development, sharing key observations from needs 
assessment with district administrators and identified stakeholders, 
preparing a logic model, planning for State-wide professional 
development, identifying subject matter experts, and conducting train-
the-trainer sessions.
    Outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-building services. 
Examples include: 95 percent of district administrators reported 
increased knowledge; two districts reported improved cross-agency 
coordination; and three districts reported identification of 2.0 FTE 
responsible for professional development.
    (1) Short-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 1 year consistent with the FY 2019 CC Logic 
Model.
    (2) Medium-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-
building services after 2 to 3 years consistent with the FY 2019 CC 
Logic Model.
    (3) Long-term outcomes means effects of receiving capacity-building 
services after 4 or more years consistent with the FY 2019 CC Logic 
Model.
    Outputs means products and services that must be completed. 
Examples include: Needs assessment, logic model, training modules, 
evaluation plan, and 12 workshop presentations.

    Note: A product output under this program would be considered a 
deliverable under the open licensing regulations at 2 CFR 3474.20.

    Regional educational agency, for the purposes of the Comprehensive 
Centers program, means ``Tribal Educational Agency'' as defined in ESEA 
section 6132(b)(3), as well as other educational agencies that serve 
regional areas.
    Service plan project means a series of interconnected capacity-
building services designed to achieve recipient outcomes and outputs. A 
service plan project includes, but is not limited to, a well-defined 
high-leverage problem, an approach to capacity-building services, 
intended recipients, key personnel, expected outcomes, expected 
outputs, and milestones.

Final Performance Measures

    Background: We are issuing these final performance measures after 
providing the public with an opportunity to comment on them through the 
NPP. Although we are not required to use notice and comment rulemaking 
to develop or change performance measures, we believed receiving public 
input on the FY 2019 performance measures may result in better informed 
performance measures.

Final Performance Measures

    Measure 1: The extent to which Comprehensive Center clients are 
satisfied with the quality, usefulness, and relevance of services 
provided.
    Measure 2: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers provide 
services and products to a wide range of recipients.
    Measure 3: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate 
that capacity-building services were implemented as intended.
    Measure 4: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate 
recipient outcomes were met.

    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year 
in which we choose to use these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and performance measures, we invite applications 
through a notice in the Federal Register.

FY 2019 Comprehensive Centers Program Logic Model

    Figure 1 is a diagram of the FY 2019 CC Logic Model. A logic model 
refers to a framework that identifies key project components, inputs, 
processes, outputs, and short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes and 
impacts and describes the theoretical and operational relationships 
among the key project components and relevant outcomes. The FY 2019 CC 
Logic Model inputs include but are not limited to SEA and LEA staff, 
implementation and organizational expertise, content area expertise, 
and Federal funding, staff, and regulations. Processes include 
capacity-building services that help recipients to develop needs 
assessments and logic models, select evidence-based practices, and plan 
for and assist in the implementation of evidence-based practices. 
Outputs include products, data, and information to assist in the 
implementation and evaluation of evidence-based practices, such as 
needs assessments and logic models. Short-term outcomes include 
increased individual and organizational capacity in four dimensions: 
Human, organizational, policy, and resource. Mid-term outcomes include 
improving SEA and LEA capacity to plan, implement, and evaluate school 
improvement programs in order to improve policies, practices, and 
systems to implement and evaluate school improvement programs. Long-
term outcomes include improved educational opportunities and academic 
outcomes for disadvantaged and low-income students.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

[[Page 13131]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AP19.021

BILLING CODE 4000-01-C

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined 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

[[Page 13132]]

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.
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the 
Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates 
that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, 
and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For FY 2019, any new incremental costs associated 
with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of 
existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because the proposed 
regulatory action is not significant, the requirements of Executive 
Order 13771 do not apply.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and performance measures only on a reasoned determination that their 
benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. 
Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this 
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 
13563.
    We also have determined that this final regulatory action does not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    These final priorities, requirements, definitions, and performance 
measures are needed to implement the CC program award process in the 
manner that the Department believes will best enable the program to 
achieve its objectives of providing capacity-building services to SEAs, 
REAs, LEAs, and schools that help improve educational outcomes for all 
students, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of 
instruction.
    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. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format 
(PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 
available free at the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: April 1, 2019.
Frank Brogan,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2019-06583 Filed 4-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P