[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 62 (Tuesday, March 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17805-17810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06350]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter VI

[Docket ID ED-2020-OPE-0031]


Proposed Priorities, Requirement, and Definitions--Fund for the 
Improvement of Postsecondary Education--Open Textbooks Pilot Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education proposes 
priorities, requirement, and definitions for the Open Textbooks Pilot 
program conducted under the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary 
Education (FIPSE), Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 
84.116T. The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of these 
priorities, requirement, and definitions for competitions in fiscal 
year (FY) 2020 and later years. We intend this action to further 
develop and identify programs and practices that improve instruction 
and student learning outcomes, as well as increase access, 
affordability, and completion rates of students seeking postsecondary 
education degrees or other recognized credentials as a result of the 
development, enhancement, and use of open textbooks (as defined in this 
notice).

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 30, 2020.

[[Page 17806]]


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 ``Help.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priorities, 
requirement, and definitions, address them to Stacey Slijepcevic, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 268-34, 
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: Stacey Slijepcevic, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 268-34, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-6150. 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 the proposed priorities, requirement, and 
definitions. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the final priorities, requirement, and definitions, we urge 
you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement, or 
definition your comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13371 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from the proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions. 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 the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about the proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions by 
accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person 
in Room 3E335, 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. Please contact the person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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 the proposed priorities, requirement, and 
definitions. 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 Open Textbooks Pilot program supports 
projects at institutions of higher education (IHEs) that create new 
open textbooks or expand the use of open textbooks in order to achieve 
savings for students while maintaining or improving instruction and 
student learning outcomes. Applicants are encouraged to develop 
projects that demonstrate the greatest potential to achieve the highest 
level of savings for students through sustainable, expanded use of open 
textbooks in high-enrollment courses (as defined in this notice) or in 
programs that prepare individuals for in-demand fields.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d.

Proposed Priorities

    This notice contains four proposed priorities. We may use one or 
more of these priorities in any year in which this program is in 
effect.
    Background: The growth in college textbook costs is an important 
contributing factor to the overall increase in the cost of attending 
college. The cost of college textbooks increased 88 percent between 
2006 and 2016.\1\ In the 2017-18 academic year, the average college 
student budget for books and supplies was $1,265 for students attending 
four-year institutions and $1,471 for students attending two-year 
institutions.\2\ Increasing textbook costs creates financial barriers 
to college access and completion, particularly for low-income students 
who have a higher propensity to forego purchasing textbooks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, The 
Economics Daily, College tuition and fees increase 63 percent since 
January 2006 (www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/college-tuition-and-fees-increase-63-percent-since-january-2006.htm).
    \2\ National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of 
Education Statistics, (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_330.40.asp).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department seeks to promote student success, especially for 
non-traditional students, adult learners, and students from 
traditionally underserved populations, by supporting the development 
and expanded use of open textbooks. The proposed priorities, 
requirement, and definitions are based largely on those used in the 
notice inviting applications published in the Federal Register on July 
30, 2018 (83 FR 36577), which introduced the Open Textbooks Pilot 
program. This notice is intended to establish a programmatic structure 
to further support the widespread adoption and use of existing open 
textbooks and the development of new open textbooks for courses in one 
or more high-enrollment programs.
    In addition to seeking public comment on the proposed priorities, 
requirement, and definitions, the Department seeks feedback on the 
following four topics to help guide future Open Textbooks Pilot program 
grant competitions:
    1. Award Size: In the FY 2020 notice inviting applications for the 
Open Textbook Pilot program, the Department will establish a maximum 
award and provide estimates regarding the range of award sizes, the 
total number of awards, and the average award. In establishing a 
maximum award, the Department seeks to balance the desire to make 
multiple awards with the need to provide adequate support to ensure 
that only the highest quality materials will be developed, will be 
adopted and implemented by a number of institutions, and will be 
updated beyond the grant period. The Department seeks feedback from the 
public on the appropriate amounts for each of these elements, assuming 
a 48-month project period and approximately $6 million available for 
new awards.
    2. Matching Contributions: Many Department programs and 
competitions include matching requirements to support key policy goals, 
including leveraging Federal dollars to maximize program impact or 
encouraging the institutionalization or sustainability of a program or 
project. The Department seeks feedback from the public on

[[Page 17807]]

whether a matching requirement would be appropriate and, if so, the 
appropriate threshold to establish for matching contributions.
    3. High-enrollment: In the FY 2018 competition, the Department 
defined ``high-enrollment courses'' as courses required for an 
associate or bachelor's degree at the IHE and that have a student 
enrollment above the average enrollment of courses at that institution 
or have higher than average enrollments nationally as compared to other 
academic or career and technical education courses. Likewise, the 
definition for a ``high-enrollment program'' was a program with a 
student enrollment above the average enrollment for programs at that 
institution or that has higher than average enrollments nationally as 
compared to other academic or career and technical education programs. 
To establish a direction for this program that ensures funds are 
reaching courses and programs with the highest enrollment, the 
Department seeks feedback on the proposed revised definition, which 
broadens the definition of ``high-enrollment courses'' to include 
courses in a recognized postsecondary credentialing pathway, as well as 
increases the benchmark for high-enrollment courses and programs to 
course and program enrollments within, at least, the top third of all 
courses and programs offered within the institution.
    4. Open Textbook: The learning resources marketplace has evolved 
beyond single textbooks to include supporting digital resources such as 
homework systems, assessment modules, and tutoring and support 
applications that are ubiquitous in classrooms and institutions. To 
more fully meet the needs of students and professional educators in 
higher education, the Department proposes a definition of ``open 
textbook'' that is broader than what was used in the FY 2018 
competition. The Department seeks feedback on the revised definition 
included in this notice.

Proposed Priorities

Proposed Priority 1--Improving Collaboration and Dissemination

    Background: Institutions with textbook affordability programs have 
reported successful implementation of open textbooks by faculty and 
instructional support through collaboration with librarians, 
instructional designers, government, and other 
partners.3 4 5
    However, there are a variety of challenges in developing and 
continuously updating open textbooks as well as in facilitating their 
widespread adoption and use. These include faculty awareness of open 
textbooks, real or perceived concerns about textbook quality, faculty 
self-interest in commercial textbooks they wrote, and availability of 
ancillary learning resources. National surveys \6\ have shown that 
while approximately 46 percent of faculty are aware of open textbooks 
in their area of study, only 20 percent of faculty are aware of a 
specific open textbook initiative at their university. To address these 
challenges, this proposed priority would emphasize partnerships within 
and among institutions and organizations that promote the development, 
implementation, and use of existing openly licensed resources and 
provide professional development opportunities for instructors and 
faculty as they create or adapt open textbooks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Griffiths, R., Mislevy, J., Wang, S., Ball, A., Shear, L., & 
Desrochers, D. (2020), OER at Scale: The Academic and Economic 
Outcomes of Achieving the Dream's OER Degree Initiative. Menlo Park, 
CA: SRI International.
    \4\ Chae, B., & Jenkins, M. (2015). A qualitative investigation 
of faculty Open Educational Resource usage in the Washington 
Community and Technical College System: Models for support and 
implementation. Washington State Board for Community and Technical 
Colleges whitepaper.
    \5\ Raneri, A., & Young, L. (2016). Leading the Maricopa 
millions OER project. Community College Journal of Research and 
Practice, 40(7), 58-588
    \6\ Seaman, J.E., Seaman, J., & Babson Survey Research Group. 
(2017). Opening the Textbook: Educational Resources in U.S. Higher 
Education, 2017. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED582411&site=ehost-live.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority: To meet this priority, an eligible applicant 
must propose to lead and carry out projects that involve a consortia of 
institutions, instructors, and subject matter experts, including no 
less than three IHEs, along with relevant employers, workforce 
stakeholders (as defined in this notice), and/or trade or professional 
associations (as defined in this notice). Applicants must explain how 
the members of the consortium will work together to develop and 
implement open textbooks that: (a) Reduce the cost of college for large 
numbers of students through a variety of cost saving measures; and (b) 
contain instructional content and ancillary instructional materials 
that align student learning objectives with the skills or knowledge 
required by large numbers of students (at a given institution or 
nationally), or in the case of a career and technical postsecondary 
program, meet industry standards in in-demand industry sectors or in-
demand occupations (as defined in this notice).

Proposed Priority 2--Addressing Gaps in the Open Textbook Marketplace 
and Bringing Solutions to Scale

    To meet this priority, an applicant must identify the gaps in the 
open textbook marketplace that it seeks to address and propose how to 
close such gaps. An applicant must propose a comprehensive plan to: (a) 
Identify and assess existing open educational resources in the proposed 
subject area before creating new ones, such as by identifying any 
existing open textbooks that could potentially be used as models for 
the design of the project or ancillary learning resources that would 
support the development of courses that use open textbooks; (b) focus 
on the creation and expansion of education and training materials that 
can be scaled, within and beyond the participating consortium members, 
to reach a broad range of students participating in high-enrollment 
courses or preparing for in-demand industry sectors or in-demand 
occupations; (c) create and disseminate protocols to review any open 
textbooks created or adapted through the project for accuracy, rigor, 
and accessibility for students with disabilities; (d) disseminate 
information about the results of the project to other IHEs, including 
promoting the adoption of any open textbooks created or adapted through 
the project, or adopting open standards of interoperability for any 
digital assets created; (e) include professional development to build 
capacity of faculty, instructors, and other staff to adapt and use open 
textbooks; and (f) describe the courses for which open textbooks and 
ancillary materials are being developed.

Proposed Priority 3--Promoting Student Success

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to build upon 
existing open textbook materials and/or develop new open textbooks for 
high-enrollment courses or high-enrollment programs in order to achieve 
the highest level of savings for students.
    Additionally, this priority requires the applicant to include plans 
for: (a) Promoting and tracking the use of open textbooks in 
postsecondary courses across participating members of the consortium, 
including an estimate of the projected direct cost savings for students 
which will be reported during the annual performance review; (b) 
monitoring the impact of open textbooks on instruction, learning 
outcomes, course outcomes, and educational costs; (c) investigating and 
disseminating evidence-based practices associated with using open 
textbooks that improve

[[Page 17808]]

student outcomes; and (d) updating the open textbooks beyond the funded 
period.

Proposed Priority 4--Using Technology-Based Strategies for Personalized 
Learning and Continuous Improvement

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project that 
focuses on improving instruction and student learning outcomes by 
integrating personalized learning strategies, such as artificial 
intelligence and adaptive learning, and providing support to faculty, 
instructors, and other staff who are delivering courses using these 
techniques. The project must enable students to tailor and monitor 
their own learning and/or allow instructors to monitor the individual 
performance of each student in the classes or courses for which the 
applicant proposes to develop open textbooks. In addition, online and 
technology-enabled content and courses developed under this project 
must incorporate the principles of universal design in order to ensure 
that they are readily accessible by all students. The openly licensed 
resources that are developed should support traditional, text-based 
materials, including through such tools as adaptive learning modules, 
digital simulations, and tools to assist student engagement.
    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: Consistent with the explanatory statement accompanying 
the FY 2020 appropriations bill, we propose to expand the entities 
eligible to apply to lead the activities of the consortium to include 
State higher education agencies.
    Proposed Requirement: The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 
Education proposes the following requirement for this program. We may 
apply this requirement in any year in which this program is in effect.
    Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are IHEs as defined in 
section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 
U.S.C. 1001), or State higher education agencies that--
    (a) Lead the activities of a consortium that is comprised of at 
least--
    (1) Three IHEs, as defined in section 101 of the HEA;
    (2) An educational technology or electronic curriculum design 
expert (which may include such experts that are employed by one or more 
of the consortium institutions); and
    (3) An advisory group of at least five employers, workforce 
organizations, or sector partners (as defined in this notice); and
    (b) Have demonstrated experience in the development and 
implementation of open educational resources.

Proposed Definitions

    Background: Multiple terms associated with this program have not 
been defined. We discuss our reasoning for the proposed definitions of 
``high-enrollment courses,'' ``high-enrollment program,'' and ``open 
textbook'' in the Background section under PROPOSED PRIORITIES. For the 
other proposed definitions, we are drawing on language and defined 
terms in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 
113-128) to ensure consistency across programs. In addition to the 
proposed definitions, we also use the following defined term in the 
proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions: State higher 
education agency as defined in section 103 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1003).
    Proposed Definitions: The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 
Education proposes the following definitions for this program. We may 
apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    High-enrollment courses means courses that are required for a 
credential conferred by an eligible IHE that either have total student 
enrollments within the top third of courses: (a) At the lead 
institution, if applicable, or at one or more of the consortia partner 
institutions; (b) in the State; or (c) nationally as compared to other 
academic or career and technical education courses.
    High-enrollment program means a program that yields a postsecondary 
credential that either has total student enrollments within the top 
third of programs: (a) At the lead institution, if applicable, or at 
one or more of the consortia partner institutions; (b) in the State; or 
(c) nationally as compared to other academic or career and technical 
education courses.
    In-demand industry sector means an industry sector that has a 
substantial current or potential impact (including through jobs that 
lead to economic self- sufficiency and opportunities for advancement) 
on the State, regional, or local economy, as appropriate, and that 
contributes to the growth or stability of other supporting businesses, 
or the growth of other industry sectors.
    In-demand occupation means an occupation that currently has or is 
projected to have a number of positions (including positions that lead 
to economic self-sufficiency and opportunities for advancement) in an 
industry sector so as to have a significant impact on the State, 
regional, or local economy, as appropriate.
    Open textbook means a textbook that is licensed under a worldwide, 
non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable license to the 
public to exercise any of the rights under copyright conditioned only 
on the requirement that attribution be given as directed by the 
copyright owner. An open textbook may also include a variety of open 
educational resources or materials used by instructors in the 
development of a course and those learning activities necessary for 
successful completion of a course by students. These include any 
learning exercises, technology-enabled experiences (e.g., simulations), 
and adaptive support and assessment tools.
    Sector partner means a member of a workforce collaborative, 
convened by or acting in partnership with a State board or local board, 
that organizes key stakeholders interconnected by labor markets, 
technologies, and worker skill needs into a working group that focuses 
on shared goals and resource needs.
    Trade or professional association means a membership organization 
that inspects employers or practitioners, or leads credentialing 
programs, in a specific industry or sector.
    Workforce stakeholder means an individual or organization with an 
interest in the employability of others either for self-interest or the 
interest of other employers.
    Final Priorities, Requirement, and Definitions: We will announce 
the final

[[Page 17809]]

priorities, requirement, and definitions in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priorities, requirement, and 
definitions after considering responses to the proposed priorities, 
requirement, and definitions 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 notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use any of the proposed priorities, requirement, or 
definitions, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal 
Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 Regulatory Impact Analysis
    Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 
result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect in a material way a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities (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.
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new rule that the Department 
proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and that 
imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For FY 2020, any new incremental costs associated 
with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of 
existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because the proposed 
regulatory action is not significant, the requirements of Executive 
Order 13771 do not apply.
    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 a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that its benefits justify its 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) Select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, 
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 that regulated entities must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives to encourage the desired 
behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    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 proposed priorities, requirement, and 
definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would 
justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that would 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 would 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    The proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions contain 
information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB 
control number 1894-0006; the proposed priorities, requirement, and 
definitions do not affect the currently approved data collection.
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 the proposed 
priorities, requirement, and definitions easier to understand, 
including answers to questions such as the following:
     Are the requirements 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?
    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 (SBA) Size Standards define ``small 
entities'' as for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual 
revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by 
small governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts), with a population of less than 50,000.

[[Page 17810]]

    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are public or private nonprofit agencies and organizations, 
including Indian Tribes and institutions of higher education that may 
apply. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the 
proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions would be limited to 
paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the 
benefits of the proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions would 
outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
    Participation in the Open Textbooks Pilot program is voluntary. For 
this reason, the proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions 
would impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for 
funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to 
apply for the Open Textbooks Pilot program funds, an eligible entity 
would evaluate the requirement of preparing an application and any 
associated costs, and weigh them against the benefits likely to be 
achieved by receiving a program grant. An eligible entity would 
probably apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed 
the costs of preparing an application.
    We believe that the proposed priorities, requirement, and 
definitions would not impose any additional burden on a small entity 
applying for a grant than the entity would face in the absence of the 
proposed action. That is, the length of the applications those entities 
would submit in the absence of the proposed regulatory action and the 
time needed to prepare an application would likely be the same.
    This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it 
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided 
under this program. We invite comments from eligible small entities as 
to whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a 
significant economic impact on them and, if so, request evidence to 
support that belief.
    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.
Assessment of Educational Impact
    In accordance with section 411 of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the 
Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the proposed 
regulations would require transmission of information that any other 
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Robert L. King,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2020-06350 Filed 3-30-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P