[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42305-42311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15221]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2019-OESE-0142]


Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Indian Education Discretionary Grants Programs--Native 
American Language (NAL@ED) Program

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

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
under the NAL@ED program, CFDA number 84.415B. The Assistant Secretary 
may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2020 and later 
years. We take this action to support Native language revitalization 
and instruction through the development and expansion of high-quality 
Native language programs.

DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are effective August 13, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya Tullos, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW,

[[Page 42306]]

Room 3W234, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6037. 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 purposes of this program are to (1) support 
schools that use Native American and Alaska Native languages as the 
primary language of instruction; (2) maintain, protect, and promote the 
rights and freedom of Native Americans and Alaska Natives to use, 
practice, maintain, and revitalize their languages, as envisioned in 
the Native American Languages Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 2901, et seq.); 
and (3) support the Nation's First Peoples' efforts to maintain and 
revitalize their languages and cultures, and to improve educational 
opportunities and student outcomes within Native American and Alaska 
Native communities.
    Program Authority: Section 6133 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7453).
    Applicable Program Regulations: We published a notice of proposed 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) for 
this program in the Federal Register on February 27, 2020, (85 FR 
11323). That notice contained background information and our reasons 
for proposing the particular priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria.
    There are four substantive differences and three technical changes 
between the NPP and this notice of final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria. Two substantive differences are 
specific to an application requirement relating to Tribal consultation; 
one relates to the application requirement to use ESEA title VI formula 
grant funds to support the project after the grant period has ended, 
and the related priority; and the final difference relates to the 
application requirement concerning pre- and post-assessments. We fully 
explain these changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section 
elsewhere in this notice.
    In the NPP we solicited the public's feedback on how to interpret 
the statutory requirement to ensure that a diversity of languages is 
supported by this program and the congressional emphasis in the 
Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Education 
Appropriations Act, 2020, regarding the importance of geographical 
diversity in grantees under this program. The Department received no 
public comment on these topics; therefore, the Department finalizes the 
proposed program requirements that, in any competition year, it will 
fund not more than one project that uses the same Native American 
language and will not exclusively fund applicants from a single State, 
assuming there are enough high-quality applications. In addition to the 
final program requirement regarding diversity of languages, the 
Department can use two of the final priorities--one to establish and 
maintain new language programs, and a second to support and expand 
existing programs--to fund separate slates of applicants; doing so 
could increase the likelihood of funding applicants that support Native 
languages not previously funded under the NAL@ED program.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, one party 
submitted substantive comments that addressed multiple proposed 
application requirements.
    We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not 
address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not 
address comments that raised concerns not directly related to the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.

Proposed Application Requirement 2--Memorandum of Agreement

    Comment: The commenter requested that the Department reduce the 
amount of time that a signed memorandum of agreement be in place prior 
to submitting an application, to less than four months.
    Discussion: The proposed application requirement stated that the 
memorandum of agreement must be signed no earlier than four months 
prior to the date of submission of the application. We intended by this 
to require that the memorandum of agreement not be more than four 
months old. We believe that the commenter interpreted the proposed 
application requirement to require that the memorandum of agreement be 
signed more than four months prior to the application deadline. We 
agree that the language is not clear, and are revising the requirement 
to clarify our intent.
    Change: We have revised the application requirement to provide that 
the memorandum of agreement must be signed no more than four months 
prior to the application deadline.

Proposed Application Requirement 3--Local Educational Agency (LEA) 
Consultation With Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations

    Comment: The commenter requested that the Department expand Tribal 
consultation requirements by requiring that--(1) non-Native applicants 
engage in Tribal consultation prior to applying; (2) all applicants 
submit a letter of support from a Tribe to signify Tribal consultation 
has been conducted; and (3) grantees conduct ongoing Tribal 
consultation throughout the grant period.
    Discussion: In the NPP, proposed Application Requirement 3 only 
applied to LEAs that are subject to the consultation requirements of 
section 8538 of the ESEA. The Department agrees, however, with the 
recommendation that non-Tribal eligible entities be required to engage 
meaningfully with Tribes, both as a way of ensuring involvement of 
local Tribes, and in recognition of Tribal sovereignty. Therefore, we 
are expanding the scope of this application requirement to include all 
non-Tribal entities.
    The Department also agrees with the commenter that providing 
documented evidence of Tribal support is important. To minimize the 
burden on applicants, in these final requirements we provide non-Tribal 
applicants with the option of providing evidence of either Tribal 
engagement or a letter of support from Tribes or Tribal organizations. 
This change subsequently prompted review of the proposed definition of 
Indian organizations (Tribal organizations). As the definition states, 
we would not consider a Tribal organization to be part of an 
institution of higher education (IHE), and we would not accept a letter 
from an IHE as evidence of engagement between an applicant and a Tribe 
or Tribal organization. Similarly, we would not accept a letter from a 
Tribal college or university (TCU) as evidence of engagement for the 
purposes of this application requirement.
    The Department also agrees that ongoing Tribal engagement 
throughout the project period is important, given that a purpose of the 
NAL@ED program is to support Native culture and language 
revitalization. Tribes should be meaningfully involved in project 
development as well as in the project's implementation and continuous 
improvement efforts. The Memorandum of Agreement described in 
Application Requirement 2 is a sufficient means of ensuring meaningful, 
ongoing

[[Page 42307]]

involvement throughout the project period.
    Changes: We have revised Application Requirement 3 to require all 
applicants that are not Tribes to engage with local Tribe(s) or a local 
Tribal organization prior to submitting an application, and to submit 
evidence of either Tribal engagement or a letter of support from the 
Tribe(s) or Tribal organization(s). In addition, we have revised the 
definition of ``Indian organization (or Tribal organization)'' to 
clarify that a TCU is not considered to be an Indian organization.

Proposed Application Requirement 4--Support Project Sustainability With 
Title VI Indian Education Formula Grant Funds

    Comment: The commenter strongly opposed requiring grantees that 
also receive title VI funds to allocate a portion or all of their title 
VI funds to support sustaining the Native language program after the 
NAL@ED grant project period has ended. The commenter argued that this 
requirement would limit Tribal sovereignty and negatively affect 
established programs using title VI funds, which are providing crucial 
services for Native students, such as tutoring or college counseling.
    Discussion: Our intent in proposing this application requirement 
was to provide a simple method of sustainability for these language 
projects following completion of the project period, and to emphasize 
the title VI formula grant program's purpose of addressing the unique 
academic and cultural needs of students. Formula grantees often 
struggle with addressing these needs, as reflected in a 2019 Department 
study, Implementation of the Title VI Indian Education Formula Grants 
Program,\1\ that surveyed 92 percent of the 1,300 FY 2018 formula 
grantees. Of those surveyed, about 50 percent of grantees reported 
challenges with the supply of school staff knowledgeable about American 
Indian or Alaska Native languages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation 
and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 
Implementation of the Title VI Indian Education Formula Grants 
Program, Volume I: Final Report. Washington, DC, 2019. Accessed May 
20, 2020 at: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-vi/title-vi-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, to address the commenter's concerns, in keeping with our 
respect for Tribal sovereignty, and to provide flexibility for 
grantees, we are removing this application requirement, while retaining 
it as a priority (see Priority 3). As a priority, it may, for example, 
be used to award competitive preference points. In order to encourage 
the use of such funds for program sustainability, and to provide 
greater clarity, we are structuring the priority to address different 
percentages of title VI formula grant funds that an applicant might 
direct to sustainability efforts, in increments of 10 percent. We will 
specify in a notice inviting applications the applicable percentages 
for a particular competition.
    Change: We have removed this application requirement. In addition, 
we have revised the language in Priority 3 to specify percentages of 
ESEA title VI funding that would be dedicated to sustaining the 
project.

Other Issues

    Comments: None.
    Discussion: After further review of the proposed priorities, we 
have made a technical change. In Proposed Priority 2--Expand and 
Improve Existing Native American Language Programs, we state that the 
program has to be ``currently active.'' However, this would mean that 
we would not consider a program that has been dormant for one or two 
years. Therefore, we are revising the priority to ensure that such 
programs can be considered under Priority 2.
    Changes: We are revising this section of Priority 2 to say ``within 
the past three years'' so that it allows for consideration of programs 
not active within the last one to two years.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: After further review of the proposed priorities, we 
have made a technical change. In Proposed Priority 4--Preference for 
Indian Applicants, we used the term ``Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) 
school.'' We are revising this term to clarify that it includes both 
BIE schools and Tribally-operated schools that are funded by the BIE.
    Changes: We have removed references to the term ``BIE school'' and 
replaced them with the term ``BIE-funded'' school in Priority 4.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: After further review of the proposed application 
requirements, we have made one additional change. In Proposed 
Application Requirement 1, regarding general requirements, the 
reference to pre- and post-assessments was meant to elicit from the 
applicant whether or not an assessment, as required under proposed 
Program Requirement 1, is already available to use for the Native 
language proposed, and if not, whether these grant funds will be used 
to support development of the required assessment. However, the 
language proposed in the NPP might be misinterpreted to mean that a 
grantee has the option to not conduct Native language pre- and post-
assessments.
    Changes: We have revised the language in Application Requirement 1 
to require applicants to specify the percentage of grant funds that 
would be used to develop a Native language assessment.

Final Priorities

Priority 1--Develop and Maintain New Native American Language Programs

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop and 
maintain a Native American language instructional program that--
    (a) Will support Native American language education and development 
for Native American students, as well as provide professional 
development for teachers and, as appropriate, staff and administrators, 
to strengthen the overall language and academic goals of the school or 
schools that will be served by the project;
    (b) Will take place in a school; and
    (c) Does not augment or replace a program of identical scope that 
was active within the last three years at the school(s) to be served.

Priority 2--Expand and Improve Existing Native American Language 
Programs

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to improve and 
expand a Native American language instructional program that--
    (a) Will improve and expand Native American language education and 
development for Native American students, as well as provide 
professional development for teachers and, as appropriate, staff and 
administrators, to strengthen the overall language and academic goals 
of the school or schools that will be served by the project;
    (b) Will continue to take place in a school; and
    (c) Within the past three years has been offered at the school(s) 
to be served.

Priority 3--Support Project Sustainability With Title VI Indian 
Education Formula Grant Funds

    To meet this priority, an applicant or a partner must receive, or 
be eligible to receive, a formula grant under title VI of the ESEA, and 
must commit to use all or part of that formula grant to help sustain 
this project after the conclusion of the grant period. To meet this 
priority, an applicant must include in its application--
    (a) A statement that indicates the school year in which the entity 
will begin using title VI formula grant funds to help support this 
project;

[[Page 42308]]

    (b) The percentage of the title VI grant that will be used for the 
project of at least--
    (i) 10 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
    (ii) 20 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
    (iii) 30 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
    (iv) 40 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
    (v) 50 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
    (vi) 60 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
    (vii) 70 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
    (viii) 80 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant;
    (ix) 90 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant; or
    (x) 100 percent of the applicant's title VI formula grant; and
    (c) The timeline for obtaining parent committee input and approval 
of this action, if necessary.

Priority 4--Preference for Indian Applicants

    To meet this priority, an application must be submitted by an 
Indian Tribe, Indian organization, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-
funded school, or Tribal College or University (TCU) that is eligible 
to participate in the NAL@ED program. A consortium of eligible entities 
that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and 
includes an Indian Tribe, Indian organization, BIE-funded school, or 
TCU will also be considered eligible to meet this priority. In order to 
be considered a consortium application, the application must include 
the consortium agreement, signed by all parties.

Types of Priorities

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

Final Requirements

Application Requirement 1--General Requirements

    An applicant must include the following information in its 
application:
    (a) Students to be served. The number of students to be served by 
the project and the grade level(s) of targeted students in the proposed 
project.
    (b) Pre- and post-assessments. Whether a pre- and post-assessment 
of Native American language proficiency is available and, if not, the 
percentage of grant funds that will be used for developing such 
assessment.
    (c) Program description. A description of how the eligible entity 
will support Native American language education and development, and 
provide professional development for staff, in order to strengthen the 
overall language and academic goals of the school(s) that will be 
served by the project; ensure the implementation of rigorous academic 
content that prepares all students for college and career; and ensure 
that students' progress toward meeting high-level fluency goals in the 
Native American language.

Application Requirement 2--Memorandum of Agreement

    Any applicant that proposes to work with a partner to carry out the 
proposed project must include a signed and dated memorandum of 
agreement that describes the roles and responsibilities of each partner 
to participate in the grant, including--
    (a) A description of how each partner will implement the project 
according to the timelines described in the grant application;
    (b) The roles and responsibilities of each partner related to 
ensuring the data necessary to report on the Government Performance and 
Results Act (GPRA) indicators; and
    (c) The roles and responsibilities of each partner related to 
ensuring that Native American language instructors can be recruited, 
retained, and trained, as appropriate, in a timely manner.
    This memorandum of agreement must be signed no more than four 
months prior to the application deadline (i.e., the agreement must be 
signed within the four months prior to the application deadline).

Application Requirement 3--Applicant Engagement With Indian Tribes or 
Tribal Organizations

    All non-Tribal applicants must engage with appropriate officials 
from Tribe(s) located in the area served by the project, or with a 
local Tribal organization prior to submission of an application. The 
engagement must provide for the opportunity for officials from Tribes 
or Tribal organizations to meaningfully and substantively contribute to 
the application. Non-Tribal applicants must submit evidence of either 
Tribal engagement or a letter of support from one or more Tribes or 
Tribal organizations. This evidence can be part of the memorandum of 
agreement required by Application Requirement 2 or can be uploaded as a 
separate attachment.

    Note: If an applicant is an affected LEA that is subject to ESEA 
section 8538, then the LEA is already required to consult with 
appropriate officials from Tribe(s) or Tribal organizations approved 
by the Tribes located in the area served by the LEA prior to its 
submission of an application, on the contents of the application as 
required under ESEA section 8538. Affected LEAs are those that have 
50 percent or more of their student enrollment made up of Native 
American students; or received an Indian education formula grant 
under title VI of the ESEA in the previous fiscal year that exceeds 
$40,000. (ESEA sec. 8538)

Program Requirement 1--Native American Language Proficiency Assessment

    Grantees must administer pre- and post-assessments of Native 
American language proficiency to participating students. This Native 
American language assessment may be any relevant tool that measures 
student Native American language proficiency, such as oral, written or 
project-based assessments, and formative or summative assessments.

Program Requirement 2--Diversity of Languages

    To ensure a diversity of languages as required by statute, the 
Department will not fund more than one project in any competition year 
that proposes to use the same Native American language, assuming there 
are enough high-quality applications. In the event of a lack of high-
quality applications in one competition year, the Department may choose 
to fund more than one project with the same Native American language.

[[Page 42309]]

Program Requirement 3--Geographic Distribution

    To ensure geographic diversity, assuming there are enough high-
quality applications, the Department will not exclusively fund projects 
that all propose to serve students in the same State in any competition 
year. In the event of a lack of high-quality applications in one 
competition year, the Department may choose to fund only applications 
that propose to provide services in one State.

Statutory Program Requirement--ISDEAA Statutory Hiring Preference: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This program requirement is directly from section 7(b) of 
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) 
(Pub. L. 93-638).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Awards that are primarily for the benefit of Indians are 
subject to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) (Pub. L. 93-638). 
That section requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, a 
grantee--
    (1) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and 
employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and
    (2) Give to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic 
enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 
1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in 
connection with the administration of the grant. (25 U.S.C. 5307(b))
    (b) For purposes of the ISDEAA statutory hiring preference only, an 
Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe.

Final Definitions

    We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which 
this program is in effect.
    Indian organization (or Tribal organization) means an organization 
that--
    (1) Is legally established--
    (i) By Tribal or inter-Tribal charter or in accordance with State 
or Tribal law; and
    (ii) With appropriate constitution, bylaws, or articles of 
incorporation;
    (2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of 
Indians;
    (3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is 
Indian;
    (4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction 
of or by charter from the governing body of that reservation;
    (5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the 
direct control of, any institution of higher education or TCU; and
    (6) Is not an agency of State or local government.
    Tribe means either a federally recognized Tribe or a State-
recognized Tribe.
    Statutory Definitions: The following definitions are from statutes 
governing the NAL@ED program. We have indicated in parentheses the 
specific statutory citation for each of these definitions.
    Native American means:
    (1) ``Indian'' as defined in section 6151(3) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 
7491(3)), which includes individuals who are Alaska Natives and members 
of federally recognized or State recognized Tribes;
    (2) Native Hawaiian; or
    (3) Native American Pacific Islander. (ESEA secs. 6151(3) and 
8101(34))
    Native American language means the historical, traditional 
languages spoken by Native Americans. (ESEA sec. 8101(34))
    Tribal college or university means an institution that--
    (1) Qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled Colleges 
and Universities Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) or 
the Navajo Community College Act (25 U.S.C. 640a note); or
    (2) Is cited in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant 
Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note). (ESEA sec. 6133 and section 316 
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1059c))

Final Selection Criteria

    (a) Quality of the project design. The Secretary considers the 
quality of the design of the proposed project.
    In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, 
the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the project design will ensure that 
students' progress toward grade-level and developmentally appropriate 
fluency in the Native American language.
    (2) The extent to which the proposed project will incorporate 
parent engagement and participation in Native American language 
instruction.
    (3) The quality of the approach to developing and administering 
pre- and post-assessments of student Native American language 
proficiency, including consultation with individuals with assessment 
expertise, as needed.
    (b) Quality of project services. The Secretary considers the 
quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In 
determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The quality of the plan for supporting grade-level and 
developmentally appropriate instruction in a Native American language 
by providing instruction of or through the Native American language.
    (2) The extent to which the project will provide professional 
development for teachers and, as appropriate, staff and administrators 
to strengthen the overall language proficiency and academic goals of 
the school(s) that will be served by the project, including cultural 
competence training for all staff in the school(s).
    (3) The extent to which the percentage of the school day that 
instruction will be provided in the Native American language is 
ambitious and is reasonable for the grade level and population served.
    (c) Quality of project personnel. The Secretary considers the 
quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In 
determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers 
the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 
employment from persons who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability.
    In addition, the Secretary considers the extent to which teachers 
of the Native American language who are identified as staff for this 
project have teaching experience and are fluent in the Native American 
language.
    (d) Adequacy of resources. The Secretary considers the adequacy of 
resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of 
resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent 
to which the applicant or a partner has experience in operating a 
Native American language program.

    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year 
in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, 
requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

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

[[Page 42310]]

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.
    OMB has determined that this final regulatory action is not a 
significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new rule that the Department 
proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and that 
imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two 
deregulatory actions. For FY 2020, any new incremental costs associated 
with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of 
existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because this regulatory 
action is not significant, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do 
not apply.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria 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 these 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.
    We have determined that these final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria will impose minimal costs on 
eligible applicants. Program participation is voluntary, and the costs 
imposed on applicants by these final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria are limited to paperwork burden 
related to preparing an application. The potential benefits of 
implementing the programs--for example, establishing partnerships among 
parties with mutual interests in developing Native language programs, 
and planning concrete strategies for supporting Native language 
revitalization--will outweigh any costs incurred by applicants, and the 
costs of carrying out activities associated with the application will 
be paid for with program funds. For these reasons, we have determined 
that the costs of implementation will be minimal for eligible 
applicants, including small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections 
of information, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public 
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can 
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden 
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are 
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact 
of collection requirements on respondents.
    The final program priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria contain information collection requirements (ICR) 
for the program application package. As a result of the revisions to 
these sections, we are submitting the grant application package with 
OMB control number 1810-0731 for a reinstatement with change. In Table 
1 below, we assume 50 applicants each spend 30 hours preparing their 
applications.

                          Table 1--NAL@ED Grants Program Information Collection Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  OMB control No.  current                                Current burden    Proposed burden    Proposed action
   burden  (total hours)             Expiration            (total hours)     (total hours)    under final rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1810-0731..................  July 31, 2023.............             1,500             1,500  Reinstatement with
                                                                                              change of 1810-
                                                                                              0731.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 42311]]

    If your comments relate to the ICR for these final regulations, 
please specify the Docket ID number and indicate ``Information 
Collection Comments'' on the top of your comments.
    Written requests for information or comments, submitted by postal 
mail or delivery, related to the information collection requirements 
should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection 
Clearance Program, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW, 
Room 9086, Washington, DC 20202.

Intergovernmental Review

    This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive 
intergovernmental review in order to make awards by the end of FY 2020.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at: www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format 
(PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 
available free at the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov.
    Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you 
can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Frank T. Brogan,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2020-15221 Filed 7-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P