Proposed Priorities and Requirement-Innovative Approaches to Literacy, 17757-17762 [2021-07027]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 6, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17757-17762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07027]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0036]


Proposed Priorities and Requirement--Innovative Approaches to 
Literacy

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

ACTION: Proposed priorities and requirement.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes to establish 
four priorities and one requirement under the Innovative Approaches to 
Literacy (IAL) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.215G. We may use 
one or more of these priorities and this requirement for competitions 
in fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years. The proposed priorities are 
intended to expand the range of applicants benefiting from Federal 
funding and promote greater innovation, by supporting students in urban 
areas and students from low-income families. The proposed priorities 
are also designed to

[[Page 17758]]

enhance the coordination between local educational agencies (LEAs) and 
school libraries, particularly in carrying out literacy activities, and 
promote learning environments that are racially, ethnically, 
culturally, disability and linguistically responsive and inclusive, 
supportive, and identity-safe.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 6, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``FAQ.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priorities and 
requirement, address them to Simon Earle, U.S. Department of Education, 
400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E254, Washington, DC 20202.
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Simon Earle, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E254, Washington, DC 20202-
6450. Telephone: (202) 453-7923. Email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this document. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the notice of final priorities and requirement, we urge you 
to identify clearly the specific section of the proposed priorities and 
requirement that each comment addresses.
    In addition to your general comments, recommended clarifications, 
and specific input on the proposed priorities and requirement, we are 
particularly interested in your feedback on the following questions:
    (1) In Proposed Priority 3, the Department proposes that an LEA 
would be considered ``urban'' if it is assigned a National Center for 
Education Statistics (NCES) locale code of 11, 12, or 13. Are NCES 
locale codes the most appropriate indicator of urbanicity for the 
purposes of the proposed priority, or are there other indicators we 
should consider?
    (2) The Department seeks to streamline the application process and 
minimize applicant burden and confusion. Under Proposed Priority 4, an 
applicant must demonstrate the extent to which it meets the priority 
using data from the most recent U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income 
and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program. Under the statutory eligibility 
requirements for this program, an applicant must use SAIPE data to 
demonstrate that the LEA or LEAs receiving a grant, or to be served by 
the proposed project, have student populations with at least 20 percent 
of students from families living below the poverty line. We believe 
that using the same data source that must be used for eligibility 
determinations (i.e., SAIPE data) for the proposed priority, with 
different percentage thresholds, would minimize confusion and burden on 
applicants. Are there poverty data sources we should consider using for 
the proposed priority other than SAIPE that would also achieve these 
goals?
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the 
proposed priorities and requirement. Please let us know of any further 
ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits 
while preserving the effective and efficient administration of our 
program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed priorities and requirement by accessing 
Regulations.gov. Due to the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 
the Department buildings are currently not open to the public. However, 
upon reopening you may also inspect the comments in person in Room 
3E254, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC, between the hours of 
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each 
week except Federal holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this document. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The IAL program supports high-quality programs 
designed to develop and improve literacy skills for children and 
students from birth through 12th grade in high-need LEAs and schools. 
The Department intends to promote innovative literacy programs that 
support the development of literacy skills in low-income communities, 
including programs that: (1) Develop and enhance effective school 
library programs, which may include providing professional development 
for school librarians, books, and up-to-date materials to high-need 
schools; (2) provide early literacy services, including pediatric 
literacy programs through which, during well-child visits, medical 
providers trained in research-based methods of early language and 
literacy promotion provide developmentally appropriate books and 
recommendations to parents to encourage them to read aloud to their 
children starting in infancy; and (3) provide high-quality books on a 
regular basis to children and adolescents from low-income communities 
to increase reading motivation, performance, and frequency.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6646.

Proposed Priorities

    This document contains four proposed priorities.
    Proposed Priority 1--Projects, Carried Out in Coordination with 
School Libraries, for Book Distribution, Childhood Literacy Activities, 
or Both.
    Background: The Explanatory Statement for Division H of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260) (2021 
Appropriations Explanatory Statement) includes language directing the 
Department to reserve no less than 50 percent of funds under the IAL 
program for grants to develop and enhance effective school library 
programs, which may include providing professional development to 
school librarians and books and up-to-date materials to high-need 
schools. 166 Cong. Rec. H8634, 2020. As early as 1992, researchers have 
found through

[[Page 17759]]

various studies that there is a positive correlation between high-
quality library activities and student achievement. In addition, newer 
studies, conducted over the last several years, show that strong school 
libraries are also associated with other important indicators of 
student success, including graduation rates and mastery of academic 
standards. In fact, these studies have often found that the benefits 
associated with good library programs are strongest for the most 
vulnerable and at-risk learners, including students of color, low-
income students, and students with disabilities.\1\ Ensuring that 
children have access to books and childhood literacy activities and are 
being read to before they can read, is critical to setting them up for 
future literacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Lance, K.C. & Kachel, D.E. (2018). Why school librarians 
matter: What years of research tell us. PDK International. https://kappanonline.org/lance-kachel-school-librarians-matter-years-research/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority:
    Projects that propose to coordinate with school libraries to carry 
out grant activities, such as book distributions, childhood literacy 
activities, or both, for the proposed project.
    Proposed Priority 2--Providing a Learning Environment That Is 
Racially, Ethnically, Culturally, Disability and Linguistically 
Responsive and Inclusive, Supportive, and Identity-safe.
    Background: The school-age population in the United States is 
becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. According to the 2018 
report, Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups, 
in the fall 2015, approximately 30 percent of public school students 
attended schools in which the combined enrollment of students of color 
was at least 75 percent of total enrollment, and about 4.9 million 
public school students were identified as English learners (EL).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/index.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide all students with learning opportunities, it is critical 
that school districts work to create environments that validate and 
reflect the diversity, identities, and experiences of all students, 
including students with disabilities. Acknowledging and addressing 
racial, ethnic, cultural, disability and linguistic differences through 
program design can help support students from all backgrounds.
    As described below, when students see that their unique 
differences, identities, and experiences are actively acknowledged and 
valued in the learning environment, they are more likely to be engaged 
in the learning process. This, in turn, contributes to what has been 
called an ``identity-safe'' learning environment. According to the 
authors Dorothy Steele and Becki Cohn-Vargas, ``Identity-safe 
classrooms are those in which teachers strive to assure students that 
their social identities are an asset rather than a barrier to success 
in the classroom. And, through strong positive relationships and 
opportunities to learn, they feel they are welcomed, supported, and 
valued as members of the learning community.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Steele, D. M. & Cohn-Vargas, B. (2013). Identify Safe 
Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, Corwin. https://www.identitysafeclassrooms.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The related concept of ``windows and mirrors'' was developed in the 
work of Dr. Rudine Sims Bishop. Dr. Bishop wrote that: ``When children 
cannot find themselves reflected in the books they read, or when the 
images they see are distorted, negative, or laughable, they learn a 
powerful lesson about how they are devalued in the society of which 
they are a part. Our classrooms need to be places where all the 
children from all the cultures that make up the salad bowl of American 
society can find their mirrors. Children from dominant social groups 
have always found their mirrors in books, but they, too, have suffered 
from the lack of availability of books about others. They need books 
that will help them understand the multicultural nature of the world 
they live in, and their place as a member of just one group, as well as 
their connections to all other humans.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://scenicregional.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Mirrors-Windows-and-Sliding-Glass-Doors.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority:
    Projects designed to be responsive to racial, ethnic, cultural, 
disability and linguistic differences in a manner that creates 
inclusive, supportive, and identity-safe learning environments.
    In its application, the applicant must--
    (a) Describe the types of racially, ethnically, culturally, 
disability status and linguistically responsive program design elements 
that the applicant proposes to include in its project; and
    (b) Explain how its program design will create inclusive, 
supportive, and identity-safe environments.
    Proposed Priority 3--Supporting Students in Urban Areas.
    Background: A consistent challenge facing schools and LEAs in urban 
areas is the lack of resources. ``Each year, it seems, urban schools 
serve larger concentrations of poor students, racial minorities, and 
ELs. As higher-income families depart, resources go with them, and 
schools are faced with the daunting prospect of doing more with less.'' 
\5\ Additionally, there is a need to ensure that students in urban 
schools have access to appropriate and necessary resources key to 
achieving educational gains. The 2021 Appropriations Explanatory 
Statement includes language directing the Department to ensure that 
grants are distributed among eligible entities that will serve 
geographically diverse areas, including underserved communities in 
urban school districts. 166 Cong. Rec. H8634, 2020. For the purposes of 
this proposed priority, we propose to consider an LEA to be ``urban'' 
if it is assigned one of the following NCES locale codes: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Schneider, J. (2017). The Urban-School Stigma. The Atlantic. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/the-urban-school-stigma/537966/.
    \6\ https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/urbaned/definitions.asp.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Locale code             Type of city             Territory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11......................  Large................  Inside an Urbanized
                                                  Area and inside a
                                                  Principal City with a
                                                  Population of 250,000
                                                  or more.
12......................  Midsize..............  Inside an Urbanized
                                                  Area and inside a
                                                  Principal City with a
                                                  population less than
                                                  250,000 and greater
                                                  than or equal to
                                                  100,000.
13......................  Small................  Inside an Urbanized
                                                  Area and inside a
                                                  Principal City with a
                                                  population less than
                                                  100,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority:
    Projects that are designed to serve one or more urban LEAs. In its 
application, an applicant must demonstrate one of the following:
    (a) The applicant is an eligible LEA or consortium of eligible LEAs 
with a locale code of 11, 12, or 13; or
    (b) The applicant is a national nonprofit that proposes to serve 
schools within eligible LEAs all of which have a locale code of 11, 12, 
or 13.
    Note: Applicants should retrieve locale codes from the NCES School 
District search tool (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/), 
searching by LEA.
    Proposed Priority 4--Supporting Students from Low-Income Families.

[[Page 17760]]

    Background: To be an eligible LEA under the IAL program, 20 percent 
or more of the students served by the LEA must be from families with an 
income below the poverty line. 20 U.S.C. 6646(b)(1)(A). The 2021 
Appropriations Explanatory Statement directs the Department to ensure 
that grants are distributed among eligible entities that will serve 
geographically diverse areas, including rural areas and underserved 
communities in urban school districts, in which students from low-
income families make up at least 50 percent of enrollment. 166 Cong. 
Rec. H8634, 2020.
    We believe that targeting IAL grants to low-income LEAs is 
critically important. According to the World Literacy Foundation, more 
than 60 percent of low-income families have no children's books in 
their homes.\7\ In proposing this priority, we also carefully consider 
added burden on prospective applicants. For reasons discussed earlier, 
we believe that the appropriate data source for this proposed priority 
is SAIPE. In response to the congressional directive, we researched how 
many LEAs across the country, urban and otherwise, serve at least 50 
percent of students from families living below the poverty line, and 
determined that this threshold may be too rigorous. In order to address 
the congressional directive and ensure we are meaningfully prioritizing 
LEAs that serve high percentages of low-income families, we propose six 
poverty thresholds from which the Department may choose to use in a 
notice inviting applications for IAL grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://worldliteracyfoundation.org/north-america/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority:
    Projects that serve students from low-income families or that serve 
LEAs serving students from low-income families. In its application, an 
applicant must demonstrate, based on SAIPE data from the U.S. Census 
Bureau or, for an LEA for which SAIPE data are not available, the same 
State-derived equivalent of SAIPE-data that the State uses to make 
allocations under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), one or more of the following:
    (a) At least 25 percent of the students enrolled in each of the 
LEAs to be served by the proposed project are from families with an 
income below the poverty line.
    (b) At least 30 percent of the students enrolled in each of the 
LEAs to be served by the proposed project are from families with an 
income below the poverty line.
    (c) At least 35 percent of the students enrolled in each of the 
LEAs to be served by the proposed project are from families with an 
income below the poverty line.
    (d) At least 40 percent of the students enrolled in each of the 
LEAs to be served by the proposed project are from families with an 
income below the poverty line.
    (e) At least 45 percent of the students enrolled in each of the 
LEAs to be served by the proposed project are from families with an 
income below the poverty line.
    (f) At least 50 percent of the students enrolled in each of the 
LEAs to be served by the proposed project are from families with an 
income below the poverty line.
    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Proposed Requirement

    Background: The types of eligible applicants listed below follow 
the requirements of the IAL statute and are not considered changed or 
new. However, the Department is proposing a requirement that would 
clearly define how an applicant must demonstrate that it meets the 
eligibility requirement, including the data source and documentation 
that will be required to be submitted in the grant application by an 
eligible applicant.
    Proposed Requirement:
    The Department proposes the following requirement for this program. 
We may apply this requirement in any year in which this program is in 
effect.
    Eligible Applicants: To be considered for an award under this 
competition, an applicant must be one or more of the following:
    (1) An LEA in which 20 percent or more of the students served by 
the LEA are from families with an income below the poverty line (as 
defined in section 8101(41) of the ESEA).
    (2) A consortium of such LEAs described in paragraph (1) above.
    (3) The Bureau of Indian Education.
    (4) An eligible national nonprofit organization (as defined in 
section 2226(b)(2) of the ESEA) that serves children and students 
within the attendance boundaries of one or more eligible LEAs.
    Note: Under the definition of ``poverty line'' in section 8101(41) 
of the ESEA, the determination of the percentage of students served by 
an LEA from families with an income below the poverty line is based on 
the U.S. Census Bureau's SAIPE.
    An entity that meets the definition of an LEA in section 8101(30) 
of the ESEA and that serves multiple LEAs, such as a county office of 
education, an education service agency, or regional service education 
agency, must provide the most recent SAIPE data for each of the 
individual LEAs it serves. To determine whether the entity meets the 
poverty threshold, the Department will derive the entity's poverty rate 
by aggregating the number of students from families below the poverty 
line (as provided in SAIPE data) in each of the LEAs the entity serves 
and dividing it by the total number of students (as provided in SAIPE 
data) in all of the LEAs the entity serves.
    An LEA for which SAIPE data are not available, such as a non-
geographic charter school, must provide a determination by the State 
educational agency (SEA) that 20 percent or more of the students aged 
5-17 in the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line 
based on the same State-derived poverty data the SEA used to determine 
the LEA's allocation under part A of title I of the ESEA.
    Final Priorities and Requirement:
    We will announce the final priorities and requirement in a notice 
in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities and 
requirement after considering responses to this document and other 
information available to the Department. This document does not 
preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, 
definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable 
rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use these priorities and the

[[Page 17761]]

requirement, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal 
Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) must determine whether this proposed regulatory action is 
``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the 
Executive Order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action 
likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only on 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 issue the proposed priorities and requirement only on a reasoned 
determination that the benefits would justify the costs. In choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches 
that would maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated 
costs and benefits, we believe that the proposed priorities and 
requirement are 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.

Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that this proposed regulatory action would 
not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation 
in our programs is voluntary, and costs can generally be covered with 
grant funds. As a result, the proposed priorities and requirement would 
not impose any particular burden except when an entity voluntarily 
elects to apply for a grant. The benefits of the proposed priorities 
and requirement would outweigh any associated costs because they would 
help ensure that the Department's discretionary grant programs select 
high-quality applicants to implement activities that are designed to 
address innovative approaches to literacy. In addition, these proposed 
priorities and requirement are specifically targeted to prioritize 
applicants from underserved areas and reduce application burden on such 
applicants.

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand.
    The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed 
priorities and requirement easier to understand, including answers to 
questions such as the following:
     Are the priorities and requirement in the proposed 
regulations clearly stated?
     Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or 
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and 
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce 
their clarity?
     Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if 
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
     Could the description of the proposed regulations in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in 
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed regulations 
easier to understand?
    To send any comments that concern how the Department could make the 
proposed priorities and requirement easier to understand, see the 
instructions in the ADDRESSES section.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration 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 proposed 
priorities and requirement would significantly impact small entities 
beyond the potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying 
for, and receiving, competitive grants from the Department.

[[Page 17762]]

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed priorities and requirement contain information 
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1894-0006.
    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: On request to the contact person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities can 
obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    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 the 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.

Ruth Ryder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, Office of 
Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2021-07027 Filed 4-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P