Administrative Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs, 13640-13644 [2020-04761]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 46 (Monday, March 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13640-13644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04761]



[[Page 13640]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket ID ED-2019-OPEPD-0120]


Administrative Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs

AGENCY: Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Final priorities.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education announces six priorities for 
discretionary grant programs that the Secretary may use in fiscal year 
(FY) 2020 and later years that expand the Department of Education's 
(the Department's) flexibility to give priority to a broader range of 
applicants with varying experience in administering Federal education 
funds (Priorities 1 and 2), applicants proposing to serve rural 
communities (Priorities 3 and 4), applicants that demonstrate a 
rationale for their proposed projects (Priority 5), or applicants 
proposing to collect data after the grant's original project period 
(Priority 6).

DATES: These priorities are effective April 8, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 205-5231. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities in the Federal 
Register on November 29, 2019 (84 FR 65734). That notice contained 
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular 
administrative priorities.
    We have made minor revisions to Priorities 1, 2, and 6, which we 
fully explain in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this 
document.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of 
proposed priorities, 11 parties submitted comments, which, in total, 
addressed all six of the proposed priorities.
    We group major issues according to subject.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities since publication of the notice of 
proposed priorities follows.
    Comments: A few commenters questioned the impact of the 
Department's grant programs, recommended not making any changes, and 
wanted to ensure all funds go to public schools.
    Discussion: We administer grant programs authorized and funded by 
Congress, and program statutes define which entities are eligible to 
apply. We intend to use these priorities to even the playing field for 
entities that are eligible for grants, but may lack experience or 
resources relative to more seasoned applicants. Additionally, 
Priorities 5 and 6 are designed to ensure we award projects that are 
based on a logic model and research and are better supported to collect 
longitudinal data. We believe both priorities will help us to measure 
and improve the impact our grants have on student outcomes.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters expressed concern with Priorities 1 
through 4, specifically Priorities 1 and 3, which prioritize a wider 
variety of applicants that commenters stated could lack prior 
experience or capacity to administer Federal grants. These commenters 
stated that the use of these priorities does not necessarily inform the 
applicant's ability to propose innovative projects.
    Discussion: We appreciate commenters' concerns about applicant 
capacity and the importance of experience and demonstrated results. The 
Department agrees that organizational capacity is critical to a 
successful grant and provides regular technical assistance to grantees 
to ensure proper internal controls and compliance with Federal grant 
policies and procedures. In addition, before awarding grants, we 
conduct a review of the risks posed by applicants, including risks 
related to financial and management systems. However, we do not believe 
that only organizations that have previously or recently had Federal 
grants or that are experienced in grant writing can effectively manage 
awards and, as such, seek to expand the applicant and grantee pool in 
order to stimulate innovation in education across the country. The 
intent of these priorities is to prioritize grant awards in areas of 
the country and with grantees not previously served under Department 
grants. In programs where we would propose to use any of Priorities 1-
4, we would carefully consider what resources and assistance we could 
provide to applicants and grantees to ensure strong applications and 
grant performance.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters highlighted issues in prioritizing 
new potential grantees in programs where there is statutory language 
that prioritizes prior experience or specific statutory requirements on 
how funding decisions are made.
    Discussion: The Department carefully considers which priorities to 
include in a grant competition, taking into consideration the purpose 
of the program and applicable statutory requirements. We only intend to 
use these priorities in programs where doing so is consistent with the 
program's authorizing statute.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: The Department wishes to clarify that, for Priorities 1 
and 2, the phrase ``under the program'' is intended to mean the 
program's specific Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 
and alpha. In situations where programs are newly authorized or 
reauthorized, the Department will consider on a case-by-case basis 
whether previous renditions of a grant program are considered to be 
``under the program.'' The Department may consider several factors, 
including: (a) Whether the notice inviting applications for the program 
included a waiver of rulemaking in a previous competition under section 
437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act for a first grant 
competition under a new or substantially revised program authority, (b) 
the extent of programmatic changes when reauthorized, or (c) whether 
the program is newly authorized in statute. For these situations, the 
Department will identify ``the program'' in the competition's notice 
inviting applications for the purposes of Priorities 1 and 2.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A few commenters expressed concerns with prioritizing 
grants that would serve rural communities, noting that these projects 
may be more likely to serve a small number of students or have a 
limited scope, and have other funding mechanisms available to rural 
communities.
    Discussion: We recognize the concern that, under Priority 3--Rural 
Applicants, applicants may propose projects that serve a smaller number 
of students than urban applicants; however, we believe that rural 
applicants may often lack resources more widely available to urban 
applicants to submit higher-quality applications and want to ensure an 
equal playing field for rural applicants whenever possible. We also 
recognize that while rural communities may receive other funding from 
the Department, such as through formula funds, non-rural communities 
also receive formula funds, and thus, these funds should not limit a 
community from applying for discretionary funds. Unless a program has 
specific statutory

[[Page 13641]]

or regulatory requirements for the size and scope of a grant project, 
we do not believe that applicants should be penalized for proposing a 
project on a smaller scale. Moreover, we would carefully consider a 
program's purpose and design when determining when to use the Rural 
Applicant priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters expressed support for Priorities 5 
and 6 and the use of evidence and data to inform grantmaking, 
encouraging the Department to use these priorities where possible, 
including using Priority 5 as an absolute priority.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments in support of Priorities 5 
and 6. The Department will carefully consider whether and how to 
include one or both these priorities in a competition, and whether to 
use these priorities as absolute, competitive preference, or 
invitational priorities, based on the program's purpose and design.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: As proposed, under paragraphs (iii), (iv), and (v) of 
Priority 1, programs would have had the discretion to establish the 
number of years that would have had to elapse since an applicant has 
had an active discretionary grant under that program, or an active 
discretionary grant or a contract from the Department, in order to 
qualify as a new potential grantee under those paragraphs of Priority 
1. We proposed a similar formulation for qualifying as an applicant 
that is not a new potential grantee under Priority 2. Upon further 
review, rather than allowing a program broad discretion in establishing 
the number of years, we are revising paragraphs (iii), (iv), and (v) to 
provide a list of years--ranging from one year to seven--from which a 
program can choose. We believe these changes will more clearly convey 
the reasonable range of options that we intended in allowing programs 
the flexibility to determine what number of years, for a particular 
program, would result in giving priority to a broader range of 
applicants with varying experience in administering Federal education 
funds. We are establishing seven years as the outer bound because that 
period of time is sufficient to meet the goal of the priority--engaging 
a broader range of entities as grantees--without making it difficult 
for the Department to promptly and reliably ascertain whether a 
particular entity meets the priority's requirements.
    Changes: We have added a list of years under paragraphs (iii), 
(iv), and (v) in Priorities 1 and 2.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In Priority 4, we are clarifying, in paragraph (d), 
that the applicant does not propose to serve a campus with a rural 
setting.
    Changes: We have modified paragraph (d) in Priority 4 to say ``does 
not.''
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we are revising the title of 
Priority 5 to remove the reference to a logic model, in order to align 
the title with the defined term ``demonstrates a rationale'' in 34 CFR 
77.1.
    Changes: We have removed the reference to the ``logic model'' in 
the priority title for Priority 5.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we are revising Priority 6 to more 
clearly align with 34 CFR 75.250(b) and to clarify what information an 
applicant would need to provide in addressing this priority.
    Changes: We have revised the priority to specifically reference 34 
CFR 75.205(b), request a budget as well as a data collection period, 
and specify a maximum length of up to 72 months.

Final Priorities

Priority 1--Applications From New Potential Grantees

    (a) Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate one or more 
of the following:
    (i) The applicant has never received a grant, including through 
membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 
75.127-75.129, under the program from which it seeks funds.
    (ii) The applicant does not, as of the deadline date for submission 
of applications, have an active grant, including through membership in 
a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, 
under the program from which it seeks funds.
    (iii) The applicant has not had an active discretionary grant under 
the program from which it seeks funds, including through membership in 
a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, 
in one of the following number of years before the deadline date for 
submission of applications under the program:
    (1) One year;
    (2) Two years;
    (3) Three years;
    (4) Four years;
    (5) Five years;
    (6) Six years; or
    (7) Seven years.
    (iv) The applicant has not had an active discretionary grant from 
the Department, including through membership in a group application 
submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, in one of the 
following number of years before the deadline date for submission of 
applications under the program:
    (1) One year;
    (2) Two years;
    (3) Three years;
    (4) Four years;
    (5) Five years;
    (6) Six years; or
    (7) Seven years.
    (v) The applicant has not had an active contract from the 
Department in one of the following number of years before the deadline 
date for submission of applications under the program:
    (1) One year;
    (2) Two years;
    (3) Three years;
    (4) Four years;
    (5) Five years;
    (6) Six years; or
    (7) Seven years.
    (b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active 
until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period, 
including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or 
contractor's authority to obligate funds.

Priority 2--Applications From Grantees That Are Not New Potential 
Grantees

    (a) Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate one or more 
of the following:
    (i) The applicant has received a grant, including through 
membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 
75.127-75.129, under the program from which it seeks funds.
    (ii) The applicant has, as of the deadline date for submission of 
applications, an active grant, including through membership in a group 
application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, under 
the program from which it seeks funds.
    (iii) The applicant has had an active discretionary grant under the 
program from which it seeks funds, including through membership in a 
group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, in 
one of the following number of years before the deadline date for 
submission of applications under the program:
    (1) One year;
    (2) Two years;
    (3) Three years;
    (4) Four years;
    (5) Five years;
    (6) Six years; or
    (7) Seven years.
    (iv) The applicant has had an active discretionary grant from the

[[Page 13642]]

Department, including through membership in a group application 
submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, in one of the 
following number of years before the deadline date for submission of 
applications under the program:
    (1) One year;
    (2) Two years;
    (3) Three years;
    (4) Four years;
    (5) Five years;
    (6) Six years; or
    (7) Seven years.
    (v) The applicant has had an active contract from the Department in 
one of the following number of years before the deadline date for 
submission of applications under the program:
    (1) One year;
    (2) Two years;
    (3) Three years;
    (4) Four years;
    (5) Five years;
    (6) Six years; or
    (7) Seven years.
    (b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active 
until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period, 
including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or 
contractor's authority to obligate funds.
    (c) This priority can only be used in competitions where the 
priority for Applications from New Potential Grantees is used.

Priority 3--Rural Applicants

    Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate one or more of 
the following:
    (a) The applicant proposes to serve a local educational agency 
(LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) 
program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized 
under Title V, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, as amended.
    (b) The applicant proposes to serve a community that is served by 
one or more LEAs--
    (i) With a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
    (ii) With a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
    (c) The applicant proposes a project in which a majority of the 
schools served--
    (i) Have a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
    (ii) Have a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
    (d) The applicant is an institution of higher education (IHE) with 
a rural campus setting, or the applicant proposes to serve a campus 
with a rural setting. Rural settings include any of the following: 
Town-Fringe, Town-Distant, Town-Remote, Rural Fringe, Rural-Distant, 
Rural-Remote, as defined by the National Center for Education 
Statistics (NCES) College Navigator search tool.

    Note: To determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for SRSA 
or RLIS, refer to the Department's website at https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/rural-insular-native-achievement-programs/rural-education-achievement-program/. Applicants are 
encouraged to retrieve locale codes from the NCES School District 
search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/), where LEAs 
can be looked up individually to retrieve locale codes, and Public 
School search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/), where 
individual schools can be looked up to retrieve locale codes. 
Applicants are encouraged to retrieve campus settings from the NCES 
College Navigator search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/
) where IHEs can be looked up individually to determine the campus 
setting.

Priority 4--Non-Rural Applicants

    Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate one or more of 
the following:
    (a) The applicant does not propose to serve a local educational 
agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement 
(SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program 
authorized under Title V, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended.
    (b) The applicant does not propose to serve a community that is 
served by one or more LEAs--
    (i) With a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
    (ii) With a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
    (c) The applicant does not propose a project in which a majority of 
the schools served--
    (i) Have a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
    (ii) Have a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
    (d) The applicant is not an institution of higher education (IHE) 
with a rural campus setting, or the applicant does not propose to serve 
a campus with a rural setting. Rural settings include any of the 
following: Town-Fringe, Town-Distant, Town-Remote, Rural Fringe, Rural-
Distant, Rural-Remote, as defined by the National Center for Education 
Statistics (NCES) College Navigator search tool.
    (e) This priority can only be used in competitions where the 
priority for Rural Applicants is used.

    Note: To determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for SRSA 
or RLIS, refer to the Department's website at https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/rural-insular-native-achievement-programs/rural-education-achievement-program/. Applicants are 
encouraged to retrieve locale codes from the NCES School District 
search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/), where LEAs 
can be looked up individually to retrieve locale codes, and Public 
School search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/), where 
individual schools can be looked up to retrieve locale codes. 
Applicants are encouraged to retrieve campus settings from the NCES 
College Navigator search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/
) where IHEs can be looked up individually to determine the campus 
setting.

Priority 5--Applications That Demonstrate a Rationale

    Under this priority, an applicant proposes a project that 
demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).

Priority 6--Data Collection

    Under this priority and consistent with 34 CFR 75.250(b), an 
applicant includes a budget for and description of a data collection 
period for a period of up to 72 months, as specified in the notice 
inviting applications, after the end of the project period.

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)).
    This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

[[Page 13643]]

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 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 rule that the Department 
proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and that 
imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For FY 2020, any new incremental costs associated 
with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of 
existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because this regulatory 
action is not a significant regulatory action, 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 only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches 
that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the 
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the 
principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with 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.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
    We have reviewed the priorities in accordance with Executive Orders 
12866 and 13563 and do not believe that these priorities would generate 
a considerable increase in burden or cost. We believe that the combined 
benefit of Priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4 would be increased diversity among 
the Department's grantees. Priority 1 gives the Department the 
opportunity to prioritize a ``new potential grantee'' with greater 
flexibility than is currently available through the existing Education 
Department General Administrative Regulations provision allowing the 
Department to give special consideration to ``novice applicants.'' We 
believe that this priority could result in a number of changes in the 
behavior of both Department staff and applicants. We believe that the 
additional flexibility in the new definition would increase the number 
of competitions in which we prioritize a ``new potential grantee,'' 
resulting in additional applicants submitting applications for 
competitions that include such a priority. Using this priority could 
increase access to the Department's grants for eligible entities who 
have struggled to submit competitive applications in the past. However, 
because application submission and participation in our discretionary 
grant programs is voluntary, we do not think that it would be 
appropriate to characterize any increased participation in our grant 
competitions as costs associated with these priorities. Moreover, we 
believe any costs will be significantly outweighed by the potential 
benefits of more efficiently targeting funds and expanding the research 
base. In addition, participation in a discretionary grant program is 
entirely voluntary; as a result, these priorities do not impose any 
particular burden except when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for 
a grant.
    Priority 2, as the inverse of Priority 1, similarly does not create 
costs or benefits, but may result in shifting some of the Department's 
grants among eligible entities. Again, since application submission and 
participation in our discretionary grant programs is voluntary, we do 
not think that it would be appropriate to characterize any increased 
participation or differences in which entities receive awards as costs 
associated with this priority.
    Priority 3 gives the Department the opportunity to prioritize rural 
applicants. We believe that this priority could result in changes in 
the behavior of both Department staff and applicants similar to those 
described above with respect to Priority 1. First, we believe that a 
priority for supporting rural communities will increase the number of 
competitions in which we prioritize rural applicants. Second, we 
believe that it may result in additional

[[Page 13644]]

applicants submitting applications for competitions that include such a 
priority, which could result in shifting some of the Department's 
grants among eligible entities. However, because application submission 
and participation in our discretionary grant programs is voluntary, we 
do not think that it would be appropriate to characterize any increased 
participation in our grant competitions as costs associated with this 
priority.
    Similar to Priority 2, Priority 4, as the inverse of Priority 3, 
does not create costs or benefits. Instead, Priorities 3 and 4 may have 
the result of shifting at least some of the Department's grants among 
eligible entities. Again, since application submission and 
participation in our discretionary grant programs is voluntary, we do 
not think that it would be appropriate to characterize any increased 
participation or differences in which entities receive awards as costs 
associated with this priority.
    To the extent a program directs additional resources to evidence-
based strategies or helps build the evidence base on a particular 
action or approach, such as through Priorities 5 and 6, there may be a 
benefit in the form of more effective use of Federal funding and 
broadened information about the evidence on the grantee's approach in 
the grantee's setting. However, it is not possible to quantify the 
extent of such a benefit without knowing which programs will use these 
priorities and in what circumstances.
    Priority 5 allows the Secretary to prioritize or require applicants 
to submit a logic model that is informed by research findings. This 
provision may result in qualitative benefits if grantees use the logic 
model to better plan their projects and more clearly communicate the 
intended outcomes. Many grant competitions already include a 
requirement similar to this priority and, to the extent it is included 
in additional competitions in the future, we do not believe that it 
would create a substantial burden for applicants, because we assume 
that applicants in those programs would likely already have 
conceptualized an implicit logic model for their applications and 
would, therefore, experience only minimal paperwork burden associated 
with explaining it in their applications. In addition, the Department 
has several publicly available resources on designing logic models and 
intends to provide pre-applicant technical assistance on this subject 
where appropriate.
    Finally, Priority 6 allows the Department to give priority to 
applications that propose to collect data after the original project 
period. The priority would not require a grantee to fund the data 
collection period itself; rather, at the completion of a project 
period, the Department would provide additional funds for data 
collection under existing authority to do so. As with Priorities 1 and 
2, because this priority would neither expand nor restrict the universe 
of eligible entities for any Department grant program, since 
application submission and participation in our discretionary grant 
programs is voluntary, and since the Department would provide the 
additional funding to support the data collection period, we do not 
think that using this priority in a competition would incur costs on 
the part of the applicant. However, it is possible that, in electing to 
provide data collection grants to a particular cohort of grantees, the 
Department would have fewer funds available to fund new awards in 
future years. For example, if a cohort of five-year grants was awarded 
in 2020, and those grantees received data collection extensions in 
2026, funds that would have been available in 2026 for new awards would 
be used, instead, to support the data collection extensions. It is not 
possible to predict the specific costs related to shifts from new 
awards to data collection awards because each grant program is funded 
at different levels and awards different average amounts to its 
grantees. Further, we anticipate that funding provided to grantees for 
the purpose of extended data collection would vary considerably 
depending on the scope of the original grant project and the scope of 
the extended data collection proposal. Finally, we believe that 
longitudinal data are valuable as a resource for practitioners, 
researchers, and the Department, and providing resources for extended 
data collection would likely improve the quality of information 
available on promising approaches to improve education outcomes.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies 
that the final priorities will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) Size Standards define proprietary institutions as 
small businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not 
dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue 
below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities 
if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their 
field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small 
organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a 
population below 50,000.
    Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible 
entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase in the 
number of applications prepared and submitted annually for competitive 
grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the final 
priorities will significantly impact small entities beyond the 
potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and 
receiving, competitive grants from the Department.
    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 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 Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: March 4, 2020.
Betsy DeVos,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04761 Filed 3-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P