Final Priorities and Requirement-Innovative Approaches to Literacy, 36510-36514 [2021-14758]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36510
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
color graphics. Pursuant to section
201(b) of the Tobacco Control Act, the
rule was published with an effective
date of June 18, 2021, 15 months after
the date of publication of the final rule.
On April 3, 2020, the final rule was
challenged in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas.1 On May
8, 2020, the court granted a joint motion
to govern proceedings in that case and
postpone the effective date of the final
rule by 120 days.2 On December 2, 2020,
the court granted a new motion by the
plaintiffs to postpone the effective date
of the final rule by an additional 90
days.3 On March 2, 2021, the court
granted another motion by the plaintiffs
to postpone the effective date of the
final rule by an additional 90 days.4 On
May 21, 2021, the court granted another
motion by the plaintiffs to postpone the
effective date of the final rule by an
additional 90 days.5 The court ordered
that the new effective date of the final
rule is July 13, 2022. Pursuant to the
court order, any obligation to comply
with a deadline tied to the effective date
is similarly postponed, and those
obligations and deadlines are now tied
to the postponed effective date.
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies
to this action, the Agency’s
implementation of this action without
opportunity for public comment,
effective immediately upon publication
today in the Federal Register, is based
on the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B). Seeking public comment is
impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to the public interest. The 90day postponement of the effective date,
until July 13, 2022, is required by court
order in accordance with the court’s
authority to postpone a rule’s effective
date pending judicial review (5 U.S.C.
705). Seeking prior public comment on
this postponement would have been
impracticable, as well as contrary to the
public interest in the orderly issuance
and implementation of regulations.
1 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States
Food and Drug Administration et al., No. 6:20–cv–
00176 (E.D. Tex. filed April 3, 2020).
2 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 6:20–cv–00176
(E.D. Tex. May 8, 2020) (order granting joint motion
and establishing schedule), Doc. No. 33.
3 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 6:20–cv–00176
(E.D. Tex. December 2, 2020) (order granting
Plaintiffs’ motion and postponing effective date),
Doc. No. 80.
4 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 6:20–cv–00176
(E.D. Tex. March 2, 2021) (order granting Plaintiffs’
motion and postponing effective date), Doc. No. 89.
5 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 6:20–cv–00176
(E.D. Tex. May 21, 2021) (order granting Plaintiffs’
motion and postponing effective date), Doc. No. 91.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Jul 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
Dated: June 24, 2021.
Janet Woodcock,
Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
Dated: July 06, 2021.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2021–14678 Filed 7–9–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED–2021–OESE–0036]
Final Priorities and Requirement—
Innovative Approaches to Literacy
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education (OESE),
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities and
requirement.
AGENCY:
The Department of Education
(Department) announces four priorities
and one requirement under the
Innovative Approaches to Literacy (IAL)
program, Assistance Listing Number
84.215G. The Department may use one
or more of these priorities and
requirement for competitions in fiscal
year (FY) 2021 and later years.
DATES: These priorities are effective
August 11, 2021.
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: Simon.Earle@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 highneed local educational agencies (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,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
medical providers trained in researchbased 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.
We published a notice of proposed
priorities and requirement (NPP) for this
program in the Federal Register on
April 6, 2021 (86 FR 17757). The
priorities included in the NPP were:
Proposed Priority 1—Projects, Carried
Out in Coordination with School
Libraries, for Book Distribution,
Childhood Literacy Activities, or Both;
Proposed Priority 2—Providing a
Learning Environment That Is Racially,
Ethnically, Culturally, Disability and
Linguistically Responsive and Inclusive,
Supportive, and Identity-safe; Proposed
Priority 3—Supporting Students in
Urban Areas; and Proposed Priority 4—
Supporting Students from Low-Income
Families. The requirement included in
the NPP set forth eligibility criteria. The
NPP contained background information
and our reasons for proposing the
particular priorities and requirement.
There are differences between
Proposed Priority 2 and Final Priority 2
as discussed in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section
elsewhere in this notice. Except for
minor editorial and technical revisions,
there are no significant changes to
Priorities 1, 3, and 4 and the
requirement from the NPP.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the NPP, 28 parties
submitted comments, which, in total,
addressed all four of the proposed
priorities and requirement. Two
comments were not relevant to the
proposed priorities and are not included
in the discussions below. We group
major issues according to subject.
Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes the law does not
authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority. In
addition, we do not address the two
comments that were not directly related
to the NPP.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and of any
changes in the priorities and
requirement since publication of the
NPP follows.
Comment: One commenter applauded
the Department for supporting school
library programs during the COVID–19
E:\FR\FM\12JYR1.SGM
12JYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
pandemic, particularly when libraries
have been closed. The commenter
remarked that library collections
urgently need updating on a regular
basis to provide resources for our
changing cultural needs. The
commenter believed professional
development for librarians will help
ensure that students have the necessary
literacy skills and tools to make accurate
independent virtual learning choices.
Another commenter, in acknowledging
the Department’s recognition of the
importance of coordinating with school
libraries to carry out grant activities,
encouraged the Department also to
promote access to diverse literary
material. The commenter believed that
every student deserves a school library
that incorporates diversity.
Discussion: The Department agrees
with the commenter that many school
libraries need updated collections,
including ensuring that available
materials reflect the diversity of
students, and that professional
development for school librarians can
be a key lever in increasing student
literacy. For that reason, we are
modifying Priority 2 to clarify that, as
under Priority 1, an applicant
implementing a program under the
priority must coordinate with school
libraries.
Changes: We have clarified in Priority
2 that an applicant must coordinate
with school libraries.
Comment: Five commenters provided
remarks regarding Proposed Priority 1,
Projects, Carried Out in Coordination
with School Libraries, for Book
Distribution, Childhood Literacy
Activities, or Both. Four of the
commenters offered support,
recognizing the importance of school
libraries, childhood literacy, and book
distribution. One commenter remarked
that IAL funding is best used by
providing tangible items, such as
eReaders, to LEAs serving children from
low-income households. A commenter,
who also supported the proposed
priority, encouraged the Department to
promote diversity of literary materials
and evaluate proposed projects’ success
in ensuring diversity.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for Proposed
Priority 1. We think applicants for IAL
funding are best positioned, in
coordination with school libraries, to
determine the needs of their students
and acquire appropriate materials in
response to those needs, which may
include books and literacy-focused
technology. We also agree that it is
important to evaluate projects’ success
in ensuring diversity and students
benefit from access to diverse literary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Jul 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
materials. Priority 2 highlights the
Department’s commitment to diverse
learning environments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Eight commenters
provided remarks for Proposed Priority
2, Providing a Learning Environment
That Is Racially, Ethnically, Culturally,
Disability and Linguistically Responsive
and Inclusive, Supportive, and Identitysafe, and each offered their support for
learning environments that are
inclusive, supportive, and identity-safe.
Commenters stated that identity-safe
learning environments will be beneficial
for students from diverse backgrounds,
low-income households, and urban
areas. A commenter also urged the
Department to prioritize funding for
projects that create inclusive
environments via ethnic course studies
tailored to each unique student
population.
Discussion: We agree that learning
environments should be responsive,
inclusive, supportive, and identity-safe,
as reflected in Priority 2. With regard to
prioritizing funding for projects that
focus on ethnic studies or creating
ethnic studies courses, we think
Proposed Priority 2 provides the
flexibility and autonomy for applicants
to be innovative in creating responsive
and inclusive learning environments,
including through changes in curricula,
library collections, and professional
development.
Changes: None.
Comment: Sixteen commenters
provided remarks regarding Proposed
Priority 3, Supporting Students in
Urban Areas. Three commenters
supported the proposed priority, noting
that many urban schools are underresourced; they expressed the need for
certified librarians in urban schools and
agreed that NCES locale codes are
appropriate indicators of urbanicity.
Eleven commenters asserted that studies
show students in rural areas face greater
educational challenges than those in
urban areas, citing data indicating that
rural students are impacted more
adversely in the areas of childhood
poverty, internet access, college
enrollment, and mental health care.
One commenter stated that NCES
locale codes are not the most
appropriate indicator of urbanicity, for
three reasons: First, school enrollment
often does not match the surrounding
population; second, relying on NCES
locale codes fails to achieve the goals of
this proposed priority and the average
wealth of families in particular schools
should be a factor; and third, an area
generally is not defined by its
population and population density. The
commenter contended that the level of
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36511
infrastructure, presence of public
transit, and types of jobs may better
define a geographical area for the
purpose of the priority.
Another commenter suggested the use
of NCES locale codes restricts IAL
funding to LEAs with an urban locale
code of 11, 12, or 13. The commenter
contended the use of the locale codes
results in an under-inclusive policy that
limits funding to urban areas even
though 70 percent of the United States
population lives in suburban and rural
areas. The commenter suggested the
Department focus on identifying LEAs
with the lowest literacy and math
achievement levels, which may not be
in urban settings.
Discussion: We appreciate the three
commenters’ support for Proposed
Priority 3 and agree that students in
rural areas face educational challenges.
To that end, the Explanatory Statement
for Division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116–
260) (2021 Appropriations Explanatory
Statement) directs the Department to
ensure that grants are distributed among
eligible entities that will serve
geographically diverse areas, including
both rural areas and underserved
communities in urban school districts,
in which students from low-income
families make up at least 50 percent of
enrollment. Because the Department
previously established a priority to
serve rural communities, this new
priority is intended to complement—not
replace—the rural priority so the
program can prioritize both rural and
urban areas, as directed by the 2021
Appropriations Explanatory Statement
from Congress.
We appreciate the commenter’s
suggestions regarding additional
indicators to be used in addition to
NCES locale codes when identifying
urban areas and agree that population is
not the only characteristic associated
with urbanicity. However, the use of
locale codes is a long-accepted practice
in distinguishing among applicants and
ensuring geographic diversity in
competitive grant programs, and we
decline to augment locale codes as
suggested by the commenter.
We disagree with the commenter who
asserted that the use of NCES locale
codes restricts funding to LEAs assigned
an urban locale code. As mentioned
above, 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
E:\FR\FM\12JYR1.SGM
12JYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36512
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
enrollment. Moreover, the use of urban
or rural priorities would not preclude
applications from, or awards to, eligible
applicants proposing to serve non-urban
and non-rural areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: Fourteen commenters
offered remarks regarding Proposed
Priority 4, Supporting Students from
Low-Income Families. Of the three
commenters expressing support for the
proposed priority, one recommended
that eligibility for participation in Part
A of Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA), be used as a
secondary tool to demonstrate that the
proposed project would serve students
from low-income households.
Ten commenters suggested this
proposed priority signals the
Department’s intent to no longer
prioritize rural LEAs and high-need
communities. Another commenter
recommended that the Department
reserve a substantial portion of available
funds under this program for LEAs
serving 50 percent or more of students
from families with an income below the
poverty line regardless of whether they
apply for an IAL grant.
Discussion: The purpose of the IAL
program is to develop and improve
literacy skills for students in high-need
LEAs and schools. Priority 4 addresses
supporting students from low-income
families and does not in any way
prioritize students in urban
communities over students in rural
communities.
The Department does not agree that
Title I eligibility would be an
appropriate measure of poverty for the
IAL program because the poverty
thresholds applicable to Title I are not
consistent with the statutory
requirements of the IAL program. More
specifically, only 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)
is eligible for an IAL award; the LEA
poverty thresholds for receiving Title I
funds range from just 2 percent for Basic
Grants to a maximum of 15 percent for
Concentration Grants.
Additionally, as stated previously, 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. Finally, the statute requires
that IAL awards be made through a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Jul 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
competitive process rather than by
formula to all eligible entities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
supported the proposed requirement.
One of these commenters noted that the
use of the Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data may
provide better opportunities for
economically challenged urban LEAs to
increase school library capabilities. The
other commenter stated the proposed
requirement reflects the intent of the
IAL program and its language reflects
the definitions in 20 U.S.C. 6646.
Discussion: We agree the proposed
requirement is essential for supporting
school libraries and literacy,
particularly for LEAs in which 20
percent or more of students served are
from families with an income below the
poverty line (as defined in section
8101(41) of the ESEA).
Changes: None.
Final Priorities:
Priority 1—Projects, Carried Out in
Coordination With School Libraries, for
Book Distribution, Childhood Literacy
Activities, or Both.
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.
Priority 2—Projects, Carried Out in
Coordination With School Libraries,
That Provide a Learning Environment
That Is Racially, Ethnically, Culturally,
Disability Status and Linguistically
Responsive and Inclusive, Supportive,
and Identity-Safe.
Projects coordinated with school
libraries and 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;
(b) Explain how its program design
will create inclusive, supportive, and
identity-safe environments; and
(c) Describe how its project will be
carried out in coordination with school
libraries.
Priority 3—Supporting Students in
Urban Areas.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(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 are encouraged to
retrieve locale codes from the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
School District search tool (https://
nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/),
searching by LEA.
Priority 4—Supporting Students From
Low-Income Families.
Projects that serve LEAs serving
students from low-income families. In
its application, an applicant must
demonstrate, based on Small Area
Income and Poverty Estimates (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 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,
E:\FR\FM\12JYR1.SGM
12JYR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirement:
Requirement:
The Department establishes 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 data.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Jul 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 Statederived poverty data the SEA used to
determine the LEA’s allocation under
part A of title I of the ESEA.
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 one or more of these
priorities or the 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
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 final regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36513
(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
and this final requirement 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.
Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this
regulatory action will not impose
significant costs on eligible entities,
E:\FR\FM\12JYR1.SGM
12JYR1
36514
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 130 / Monday, July 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
whose participation in our programs is
voluntary, and costs can generally be
covered with grant funds. As a result,
the final priorities and requirement will
not impose any particular burden except
when an entity voluntarily elects to
apply for a grant. The benefits of the
priorities and requirement will
outweigh any associated costs because
they will 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 priorities and requirement are
specifically targeted to prioritize
applicants from underserved areas and
reduce application burden on such
applicants.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
The Secretary certifies that this
regulatory action will 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
final priorities and requirement will
significantly impact small entities
beyond the potential for increasing the
likelihood of their applying for, and
receiving, competitive grants from the
Department.
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
program 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 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.
Ian Rosenblum,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Programs Delegated the Authority to Perform
the Functions and Duties of the Assistant
Secretary, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2021–14758 Filed 7–9–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Paperwork Reduction Act
50 CFR Part 679
The final 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
[Docket No. 210210–0018; RTID 0648–
XB226]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Jul 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod in the
Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of
Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NMFS is prohibiting retention
of Pacific cod by catcher/processors
using trawl gear in the Central
Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska
(GOA). This action is necessary because
the 2021 total allowable catch of Pacific
cod allocated to catcher/processors
using trawl gear in the Central
Regulatory Area of the GOA has been
reached.
DATES: Effective 1200 hours, Alaska
local time (A.l.t.), July 8, 2021, through
2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Obren Davis, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the groundfish fishery in the
GOA exclusive economic zone
according to the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of
Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council
under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. Regulations governing
fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance
with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50
CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2021 total allowable catch (TAC)
of Pacific cod allocated to catcher/
processors using trawl gear in the
Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is
426 metric tons (mt) as established by
the final 2021 and 2022 harvest
specifications for groundfish of the GOA
(86 FR 10184, February 19, 2021).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the
Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS
(Regional Administrator), has
determined that the 2021 TAC of Pacific
cod allocated to catcher/processors
using trawl gear in the Central
Regulatory Area of the GOA has been
reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring
that Pacific cod caught by catcher/
processors using trawl gear in the
Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be
treated as prohibited species in
accordance with § 679.21(a)(2).
SUMMARY:
Classification
NMFS issues this action pursuant to
section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. This action is required by 50 CFR
part 679, which was issued pursuant to
section 304(b), and is exempt from
review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there
is good cause to waive prior notice and
an opportunity for public comment on
this action, as notice and comment
would be impracticable and contrary to
the public interest, as it would prevent
NMFS from responding to the most
recent fisheries data in a timely fashion
and would delay prohibiting the
retention of Pacific cod by catcher/
processors using trawl gear in the
E:\FR\FM\12JYR1.SGM
12JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 130 (Monday, July 12, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36510-36514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14758]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0036]
Final Priorities and Requirement--Innovative Approaches to
Literacy
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department
of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities and requirement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces four
priorities and one requirement under the Innovative Approaches to
Literacy (IAL) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.215G. The
Department may use one or more of these priorities and requirement for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years.
DATES: These priorities are effective August 11, 2021.
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:
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 local educational
agencies (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.
We published a notice of proposed priorities and requirement (NPP)
for this program in the Federal Register on April 6, 2021 (86 FR
17757). The priorities included in the NPP were: Proposed Priority 1--
Projects, Carried Out in Coordination with School Libraries, for Book
Distribution, Childhood Literacy Activities, or Both; Proposed Priority
2--Providing a Learning Environment That Is Racially, Ethnically,
Culturally, Disability and Linguistically Responsive and Inclusive,
Supportive, and Identity-safe; Proposed Priority 3--Supporting Students
in Urban Areas; and Proposed Priority 4--Supporting Students from Low-
Income Families. The requirement included in the NPP set forth
eligibility criteria. The NPP contained background information and our
reasons for proposing the particular priorities and requirement.
There are differences between Proposed Priority 2 and Final
Priority 2 as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section
elsewhere in this notice. Except for minor editorial and technical
revisions, there are no significant changes to Priorities 1, 3, and 4
and the requirement from the NPP.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 28
parties submitted comments, which, in total, addressed all four of the
proposed priorities and requirement. Two comments were not relevant to
the proposed priorities and are not included in the discussions below.
We group major issues according to subject.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address the two
comments that were not directly related to the NPP.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities and requirement since publication of
the NPP follows.
Comment: One commenter applauded the Department for supporting
school library programs during the COVID-19
[[Page 36511]]
pandemic, particularly when libraries have been closed. The commenter
remarked that library collections urgently need updating on a regular
basis to provide resources for our changing cultural needs. The
commenter believed professional development for librarians will help
ensure that students have the necessary literacy skills and tools to
make accurate independent virtual learning choices. Another commenter,
in acknowledging the Department's recognition of the importance of
coordinating with school libraries to carry out grant activities,
encouraged the Department also to promote access to diverse literary
material. The commenter believed that every student deserves a school
library that incorporates diversity.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenter that many
school libraries need updated collections, including ensuring that
available materials reflect the diversity of students, and that
professional development for school librarians can be a key lever in
increasing student literacy. For that reason, we are modifying Priority
2 to clarify that, as under Priority 1, an applicant implementing a
program under the priority must coordinate with school libraries.
Changes: We have clarified in Priority 2 that an applicant must
coordinate with school libraries.
Comment: Five commenters provided remarks regarding Proposed
Priority 1, Projects, Carried Out in Coordination with School
Libraries, for Book Distribution, Childhood Literacy Activities, or
Both. Four of the commenters offered support, recognizing the
importance of school libraries, childhood literacy, and book
distribution. One commenter remarked that IAL funding is best used by
providing tangible items, such as eReaders, to LEAs serving children
from low-income households. A commenter, who also supported the
proposed priority, encouraged the Department to promote diversity of
literary materials and evaluate proposed projects' success in ensuring
diversity.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for Proposed
Priority 1. We think applicants for IAL funding are best positioned, in
coordination with school libraries, to determine the needs of their
students and acquire appropriate materials in response to those needs,
which may include books and literacy-focused technology. We also agree
that it is important to evaluate projects' success in ensuring
diversity and students benefit from access to diverse literary
materials. Priority 2 highlights the Department's commitment to diverse
learning environments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Eight commenters provided remarks for Proposed Priority 2,
Providing a Learning Environment That Is Racially, Ethnically,
Culturally, Disability and Linguistically Responsive and Inclusive,
Supportive, and Identity-safe, and each offered their support for
learning environments that are inclusive, supportive, and identity-
safe. Commenters stated that identity-safe learning environments will
be beneficial for students from diverse backgrounds, low-income
households, and urban areas. A commenter also urged the Department to
prioritize funding for projects that create inclusive environments via
ethnic course studies tailored to each unique student population.
Discussion: We agree that learning environments should be
responsive, inclusive, supportive, and identity-safe, as reflected in
Priority 2. With regard to prioritizing funding for projects that focus
on ethnic studies or creating ethnic studies courses, we think Proposed
Priority 2 provides the flexibility and autonomy for applicants to be
innovative in creating responsive and inclusive learning environments,
including through changes in curricula, library collections, and
professional development.
Changes: None.
Comment: Sixteen commenters provided remarks regarding Proposed
Priority 3, Supporting Students in Urban Areas. Three commenters
supported the proposed priority, noting that many urban schools are
under-resourced; they expressed the need for certified librarians in
urban schools and agreed that NCES locale codes are appropriate
indicators of urbanicity. Eleven commenters asserted that studies show
students in rural areas face greater educational challenges than those
in urban areas, citing data indicating that rural students are impacted
more adversely in the areas of childhood poverty, internet access,
college enrollment, and mental health care.
One commenter stated that NCES locale codes are not the most
appropriate indicator of urbanicity, for three reasons: First, school
enrollment often does not match the surrounding population; second,
relying on NCES locale codes fails to achieve the goals of this
proposed priority and the average wealth of families in particular
schools should be a factor; and third, an area generally is not defined
by its population and population density. The commenter contended that
the level of infrastructure, presence of public transit, and types of
jobs may better define a geographical area for the purpose of the
priority.
Another commenter suggested the use of NCES locale codes restricts
IAL funding to LEAs with an urban locale code of 11, 12, or 13. The
commenter contended the use of the locale codes results in an under-
inclusive policy that limits funding to urban areas even though 70
percent of the United States population lives in suburban and rural
areas. The commenter suggested the Department focus on identifying LEAs
with the lowest literacy and math achievement levels, which may not be
in urban settings.
Discussion: We appreciate the three commenters' support for
Proposed Priority 3 and agree that students in rural areas face
educational challenges. To that end, the Explanatory Statement for
Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-
260) (2021 Appropriations Explanatory Statement) directs the Department
to ensure that grants are distributed among eligible entities that will
serve geographically diverse areas, including both rural areas and
underserved communities in urban school districts, in which students
from low-income families make up at least 50 percent of enrollment.
Because the Department previously established a priority to serve rural
communities, this new priority is intended to complement--not replace--
the rural priority so the program can prioritize both rural and urban
areas, as directed by the 2021 Appropriations Explanatory Statement
from Congress.
We appreciate the commenter's suggestions regarding additional
indicators to be used in addition to NCES locale codes when identifying
urban areas and agree that population is not the only characteristic
associated with urbanicity. However, the use of locale codes is a long-
accepted practice in distinguishing among applicants and ensuring
geographic diversity in competitive grant programs, and we decline to
augment locale codes as suggested by the commenter.
We disagree with the commenter who asserted that the use of NCES
locale codes restricts funding to LEAs assigned an urban locale code.
As mentioned above, 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
[[Page 36512]]
enrollment. Moreover, the use of urban or rural priorities would not
preclude applications from, or awards to, eligible applicants proposing
to serve non-urban and non-rural areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: Fourteen commenters offered remarks regarding Proposed
Priority 4, Supporting Students from Low-Income Families. Of the three
commenters expressing support for the proposed priority, one
recommended that eligibility for participation in Part A of Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA),
be used as a secondary tool to demonstrate that the proposed project
would serve students from low-income households.
Ten commenters suggested this proposed priority signals the
Department's intent to no longer prioritize rural LEAs and high-need
communities. Another commenter recommended that the Department reserve
a substantial portion of available funds under this program for LEAs
serving 50 percent or more of students from families with an income
below the poverty line regardless of whether they apply for an IAL
grant.
Discussion: The purpose of the IAL program is to develop and
improve literacy skills for students in high-need LEAs and schools.
Priority 4 addresses supporting students from low-income families and
does not in any way prioritize students in urban communities over
students in rural communities.
The Department does not agree that Title I eligibility would be an
appropriate measure of poverty for the IAL program because the poverty
thresholds applicable to Title I are not consistent with the statutory
requirements of the IAL program. More specifically, only 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) is eligible for an IAL award; the LEA poverty
thresholds for receiving Title I funds range from just 2 percent for
Basic Grants to a maximum of 15 percent for Concentration Grants.
Additionally, as stated previously, 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. Finally, the statute requires
that IAL awards be made through a competitive process rather than by
formula to all eligible entities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters supported the proposed requirement. One of
these commenters noted that the use of the Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data may provide better opportunities for
economically challenged urban LEAs to increase school library
capabilities. The other commenter stated the proposed requirement
reflects the intent of the IAL program and its language reflects the
definitions in 20 U.S.C. 6646.
Discussion: We agree the proposed requirement is essential for
supporting school libraries and literacy, particularly for LEAs in
which 20 percent or more of students served are from families with an
income below the poverty line (as defined in section 8101(41) of the
ESEA).
Changes: None.
Final Priorities:
Priority 1--Projects, Carried Out in Coordination With School
Libraries, for Book Distribution, Childhood Literacy Activities, or
Both.
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.
Priority 2--Projects, Carried Out in Coordination With School
Libraries, That Provide a Learning Environment That Is Racially,
Ethnically, Culturally, Disability Status and Linguistically Responsive
and Inclusive, Supportive, and Identity-Safe.
Projects coordinated with school libraries and 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;
(b) Explain how its program design will create inclusive,
supportive, and identity-safe environments; and
(c) Describe how its project will be carried out in coordination
with school libraries.
Priority 3--Supporting Students in Urban Areas.
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.
(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 are encouraged to retrieve locale codes from the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) School District search
tool (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/), searching by LEA.
Priority 4--Supporting Students From Low-Income Families.
Projects that serve LEAs serving students from low-income families.
In its application, an applicant must demonstrate, based on Small Area
Income and Poverty Estimates (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 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,
[[Page 36513]]
we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding
additional points, depending on the extent to which the application
meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an
application that meets the priority over an application of comparable
merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirement:
Requirement:
The Department establishes 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 data.
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.
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 one or more of these priorities or the
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 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 final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these final priorities and this final requirement
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.
Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this regulatory action will not impose
significant costs on eligible entities,
[[Page 36514]]
whose participation in our programs is voluntary, and costs can
generally be covered with grant funds. As a result, the final
priorities and requirement will not impose any particular burden except
when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for a grant. The benefits of
the priorities and requirement will outweigh any associated costs
because they will 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 priorities and requirement are specifically targeted to
prioritize applicants from underserved areas and reduce application
burden on such applicants.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action will 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 final
priorities and requirement will significantly impact small entities
beyond the potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying
for, and receiving, competitive grants from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The final 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 program 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 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.
Ian Rosenblum,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs Delegated the
Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant
Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2021-14758 Filed 7-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
