[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 186 (Thursday, September 24, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60117-60124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18304]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2020-OCTAE-0029]


Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definition, and Selection 
Criteria--Perkins Innovation and Modernization Grant Program

AGENCY: Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection 
criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult 
Education proposes priorities, requirements, a definition, and 
selection criteria under the Perkins Innovation and Modernization Grant 
Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.051F. 
The Assistant Secretary may use the priorities, requirements, 
definition, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 
2020 and later years. We take this action in order to support the 
identification of strong and well-designed projects that will 
incorporate evidence-based and innovative strategies and activities to 
improve and modernize career and technical education (CTE) and better 
prepare youth and adults for in-demand jobs.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before October 26, 2020.

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 ``How 
to Use Regulations.gov'' in the Help section.
    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or 
deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address them to 
Corinne Sauri, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 
Room 11-110, PCP, 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: Corinne Sauri, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 11-110, PCP, Washington, DC 
20202. Telephone: (202) 245-6412. 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, requirements, definition, and selection 
criteria. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the final priorities, requirements, definition, and 
selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific 
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion your 
comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their 
overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result 
from the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection 
criteria. 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, requirements, definition, and 
selection criteria by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 
the comments in person in Room 11-110, PCP, 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.
    Specific Requests for Comment: The Department is particularly 
interested in comments on Proposed Priority 4--Serving Students from 
Low-Income Families. We are interested in feedback about how well this 
priority would assist in the determination of whether a proposed 
project would predominantly serve students from low-income families as 
well as whether the proposed priority would be challenging or 
burdensome for applicants to meet and, if so, how the proposed priority 
could be revised. In addition, we invite comment about the 
appropriateness of the proposed data sources applicants may use to 
demonstrate that the proposed project will serve students from low-
income families.
    We are also interested in comments about whether there are 
important aspects of innovative CTE projects or the likelihood of 
project success that the proposed selection criteria for the I and M 
competition do not assess. We are interested in feedback about whether 
there is ambiguity in the language of the proposed selection criteria 
that will make it difficult for applicants to respond to the criteria 
and for peer reviewers to evaluate applications with respect to the 
selection criteria.
    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

[[Page 60118]]

review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record 
for the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection 
criteria. 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 purpose of the Perkins Innovation and 
Modernization (Perkins I and M) Grant Program is to identify, support, 
and rigorously evaluate evidence-based and innovative strategies and 
activities to improve and modernize CTE, and to ensure workforce skills 
taught in CTE programs funded under the Carl D. Perkins Career and 
Technical Education Act of 2006, as amended by the Strengthening Career 
and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V or the 
Act), align with labor market needs.
    Program Authority: Section 114(e) of Perkins V (20 U.S.C. 2327).
    Background: The Perkins Innovation and Modernization (I and M) 
Grant Program was authorized by amendments to the Carl D. Perkins 
Career and Technical Education Act that were enacted in 2018 by the 
Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act 
(Pub. L. 115-224). The program's first competition for new awards 
occurred during 2019 and resulted in nine grant awards. We propose 
these priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria in 
anticipation of future grant competitions. The proposed priorities, 
requirements, and definition are based largely on those used in the 
notice inviting applications (NIA) for the 2019 competition that was 
published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2019 (84 FR 15193). The 
proposed selection criteria differ, however, from the criteria we used 
in the 2019 NIA because they are tailored to the specific requirements 
of the Perkins I and M Grant Program. The 2019 NIA used the general 
selection criteria from the Education Department General Administrative 
Regulations (34 CFR 75.210). However, we propose, for example, to 
establish a selection criterion that would assess the extent to which 
the project proposed in an application addresses a regional or local 
need identified through the comprehensive local needs assessment 
carried out under section 134(c) of Perkins V. We also propose a 
selection criterion that focuses on projects that serve students from 
rural areas. We believe that these and the other proposed selection 
criteria would help peer reviewers evaluate the quality of Perkins I 
and M grant applications and identify the strongest proposals to 
improve and modernize CTE.

Proposed Priorities

    This document contains five proposed priorities. We may apply one 
or more of these priorities for a Perkins I and M grant competition in 
FY 2020 or in subsequent years.

Proposed Priority 1--Evidence-Based Field-Initiated Innovations

    Background: The purpose of the Perkins I and M Grant Program is to 
test new ideas that can help better prepare students for success in the 
workforce. Section 114(e)(1) of Perkins V requires the strategies and 
activities funded under this program to be not only innovative, but 
also evidence-based, which is defined in Perkins V by adopting the 
definition of ``evidence-based'' from the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act 
(ESEA). This definition includes four tiers of evidence that are 
defined in 34 CFR 77.1 and distinguished from each other by the 
strength and extent of rigorous research on the effectiveness of an 
intervention--(1) strong evidence, (2) moderate evidence, (3) promising 
evidence, or (4) evidence that demonstrates a rationale.
    This proposed priority identifies each of these evidence tiers and 
requires applicants to describe how their proposed project meets one of 
these tiers. The proposed priority could be used by the Department in a 
variety of ways in different competitions. It could be used as a 
competitive preference priority that awards points to applications 
based on the evidence tiers that they meet. Alternatively, it could be 
implemented as an absolute priority that requires applicants, in order 
to be considered for funding, to demonstrate that they meet one or more 
of the evidence tiers, or even a specific evidence tier. In a given 
competition, the Secretary would have flexibility to choose one or more 
evidence tiers for applicants to meet. The 2019 NIA, for example, 
included an absolute priority for projects that demonstrated a 
rationale and included a corresponding logic model.
    Proposed Priority: Under this priority the Department provides 
funding to applicants that propose a project for evidence-based field-
initiated innovations.
    In its application, an applicant must propose to create, develop, 
implement, replicate, or take to scale evidence-based (as defined in 
section 8101(21)(A) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) and adopted by 
section 3(23) of Perkins V), field-initiated innovations to modernize 
and to improve effectiveness and alignment of CTE (as defined in 
section 3 of Perkins V) with labor market needs, and to improve student 
outcomes in CTE. The application must describe how the proposed project 
meets one or more of the following evidence tiers:
    (a) Strong evidence.
    (b) Moderate evidence.
    (c) Promising evidence.
    (d) Demonstrates a rationale, including the corresponding logic 
model.

Proposed Priority 2--Promoting STEM Education

    Background: We propose a priority that aligns with Priority 6--
Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM) Education, 
With a Particular Focus on Computer Science, from the Secretary's Final 
Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant 
Programs, published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 
9096) (Supplemental Priorities). Proposed Priority 2 pertains to 
projects designed to improve student achievement or other education 
outcomes in STEM. However, as discussed below, we propose a separate 
priority, Proposed Priority 3, to focus on projects designed to improve 
student achievement or other education outcomes in computer science.
    Preparing secondary and postsecondary CTE students for career 
opportunities in industries in the STEM sectors, such as advanced 
manufacturing and health care, is essential to promoting innovation and 
economic growth. Furthermore, STEM jobs that require less than a 
bachelor's degree pay higher wages than non-STEM jobs with similar 
educational requirements.\1\ Proposed Priority 2 is designed to support 
projects that prepare students for, and promote access to, employment 
opportunities in STEM fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Real-Time Insight into the Market for Entry-Level STEM Jobs, 
Burning Glass Technologies (2014). Retrieved from: www.burning-glass.com/wp-content/uploads/Real-Time-Insight-Into-The-Market-For-Entry-Level-STEM-Jobs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority: Projects designed to improve student achievement 
or other education outcomes in one or more of the following areas: 
Science, technology, engineering, math. These projects must address one 
or more of the following priority areas:
    (a) Increasing access to STEM coursework and hands-on learning 
opportunities, such as through expanded course offerings, dual 
enrollment (as defined in Perkins V),

[[Page 60119]]

high-quality online coursework, or other innovative delivery 
mechanisms.
    (b) Creating or expanding partnerships between schools, local 
educational agencies (LEAs), State educational agencies (SEAs), 
businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or institutions of higher 
education (IHEs) (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act 
of 1965, as amended, and section 3(30) of Perkins V) to give students 
access to internships, apprenticeships, or other work-based learning 
(as defined in section 3(55) of Perkins V) experiences in STEM fields.
    (c) Supporting programs that lead to recognized postsecondary 
credentials (as defined in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128, 29 U.S.C. 3102) and section 
3(43) of Perkins V) or skills that align to the skill needs of 
industries in the State or regional economy for careers in STEM fields.

Proposed Priority 3--Promoting Computer Science Education

    Background: We propose an additional priority that aligns with 
Priority 6 in the Supplemental Priorities but focuses on projects that 
address computer science (as defined in this document), specifically. 
The proposed priority also aligns with the Presidential Memorandum for 
the Secretary of Education \2\ on Increasing Access to High-Quality 
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education that 
directs the Department of Education to increase the focus on computer 
science in existing K-12 and postsecondary programs. Projects that 
address computer science may include those that focus on cybersecurity-
related education, training, and apprenticeship programs, consistent 
with Executive Order 13800 on Strengthening the Cybersecurity of 
Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure, as well as coding and 
data science. According to Code.org, only 45 percent of high schools 
teach computer science. Further, students in rural communities and in 
schools with higher percentages of students from low-income families 
are less likely to have access to computer science education.\3\ 
Proposed Priority 3 is designed to support projects that prepare 
students for, and promote access to, employment opportunities in 
computer science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Trump, Donald, J., Increasing Access to High-Quality 
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education. 
Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Education, 82 FR 45417 
(September 28, 2017).
    \3\ Code.org. 2019 State of Computer Science Education. (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority: Projects designed to improve student achievement 
or other education outcomes in computer science, as defined in this 
document. These projects must address one or more of the following 
priority areas:
    (a) Increasing access to computer science coursework, and hands-on 
computer science learning opportunities, such as through expanded 
course offerings, dual-enrollment, high-quality online coursework, or 
other innovative delivery mechanisms.
    (b) Creating or expanding partnerships between schools, LEAs, SEAs, 
businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or IHEs to give students 
access to computer science internships, apprenticeships, or other work-
based learning experiences in computer science fields.
    (c) Supporting programs that lead to recognized postsecondary 
credentials (as defined in section 3 of WIOA (29 U.S.C. 3102)) in 
computer science or skills that align with the skill needs of 
industries in the State or regional economy for careers in computer 
science.

Proposed Priority 4--Serving Students From Low-Income Families

    Background: Section 114(e)(4) of Perkins V instructs the Secretary 
to give priority to Perkins I and M projects that will predominantly 
serve students from low-income families. To encourage and support 
efforts to increase the number of innovative and high-quality CTE 
programs available to students from low-income families, particularly 
in the Nation's high-poverty areas, we propose to implement this 
statutory priority by requiring an applicant to describe its plan to 
serve students from low-income families and demonstrate that a specific 
minimum percentage of students to be served by the project will be 
students from low-income families over the course of the grant project 
period.
    Under the proposed priority, an applicant would describe its plan 
to predominantly serve students from low-income families. The plan 
would include the specific activities, a proposed timeline, and a 
rationale for how the proposed activities will result in projects in 
which the students to be served are predominantly students from low-
income families, and would name the parties responsible for 
implementation of the proposed activities. Additionally, applicants 
would provide data to demonstrate that at least 51 percent of the 
students that will be served by the project would be from low-income 
families, based on where the students reside. We propose the following 
data sources that applicants would use to demonstrate that the proposed 
student population is predominantly from low-income families: Children 
aged five through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data 
approved by the Secretary; students eligible for a free or reduced-
price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
U.S.C. 1751 et seq.); students who are Federal Pell Grant recipients; 
or a composite of such indicators. We invite public comment on whether 
these sources are the most appropriate.
    Proposed Priority: To meet this priority, applicants must submit a 
plan demonstrating that the project will serve students who are 
predominantly from low-income families.
    The plan must include--
    (a) The specific activities that the applicant proposes;
    (b) The timeline for implementing the activities;
    (c) Names of the parties responsible for implementing the 
activities; and
    (d) Evidence that at least 51 percent of the students to be served 
by the project are from low-income families, including--
    (1) A description of the key data sources and measures for such 
evidence; and
    (2) The most recent data demonstrating that the students to be 
served by the project are from low-income families.
    When demonstrating that the project is designed to predominantly 
serve students from low-income families, the applicant must use one or 
more of the following data sources and measures: (1) Children aged 5 
through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data approved 
by the Secretary; \4\ (2) students eligible for a free or reduced-price 
lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
1751 et seq.); (3) students who are Federal Pell Grant recipients; or 
(4) a composite of such indicators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The U.S. Census Bureau LEA poverty estimates are available 
at: www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/demo/saipe/2017-school-districts.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Priority 5--Serving Middle School, High School, and 
Postsecondary Students

    Background: This proposed priority is for applicants serving 
students enrolled at particular levels of schooling and is intended to 
support efforts to increase the number of programs that offer 
innovative and high-quality CTE to such students. We propose three 
subparts to this priority, each of which would require that a project 
serve students who

[[Page 60120]]

are enrolled in a particular education level--middle school, high 
school, or postsecondary school--over the course of the grant project 
period. The Secretary could choose one or more of the subparts of this 
priority in a given competition based on an assessment of the field. 
For example, for a particular competition, the Secretary might give 
priority to applications from projects that propose to serve students 
in the middle grades (any of grades 5 through 8). Alternatively, the 
Secretary might invite applications from projects that focus at the 
postsecondary level or give priority to projects that are designed to 
serve students in all three education levels.
    Proposed Priority: To meet this priority, applicants must propose a 
project to serve one or more of the following:
    (a) Students enrolled in the middle grades (any of grades 5 through 
8) in a local educational agency or education service agency eligible 
to receive funds under section 131 of the Act.
    (b) Students enrolled in the high school grades (any of grades 9 
through 12) in a local educational agency or education service agency 
eligible to receive funds under section 131 of the Act.
    (c) Students enrolled in a certificate or associate degree 
postsecondary education program at an institution of higher education 
eligible to receive funds under section 132 of the Act.
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 Requirements

    We are proposing the following application and program 
requirements. We may apply one or more of these requirements for a 
Perkins I and M competition in FY 2020 or in subsequent years.

Proposed Requirement 1--Demonstration of Matching Funds

    Background: Section 114(e)(2)(A) of Perkins V requires each grantee 
to provide from non-Federal sources (e.g., State, local, or private 
sources), an amount equal to not less than 50 percent of the funds 
provided under the grant, which may be provided in cash or through in-
kind contributions, to carry out activities supported by the grant. To 
implement this requirement and ensure an applicant has the necessary 
commitments for match funding prior to submitting its grant 
application, we propose to require each applicant to include in its 
grant application a budget detailing the source of the matching funds 
and a letter committing to the match from an individual from the entity 
providing the matching funds who has authority to make legally binding 
commitments on behalf of the entity.
    Proposed Requirement: Each applicant must demonstrate in its 
application that it will provide from non-Federal sources (e.g., State, 
local, or private sources), an amount equal to not less than 50 percent 
of funds provided under the grant, which may be provided in cash or 
through in-kind contributions, to carry out activities supported by the 
grant. The evidence must include a budget detailing the source of the 
matching funds, whether the funds will be provided in cash or through 
in-kind contributions, and a letter committing to the match from an 
individual who has authority to make legally binding commitments on 
behalf of the entity that is providing the matching funds.

Proposed Requirement 2--Description of Allowable Activities

    Background: Section 114(e)(7) of Perkins V requires each grantee to 
use Federal grant funds ``to create, develop, implement, replicate, or 
take to scale evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to modernize 
and improve effectiveness and alignment of career and technical 
education and to improve student outcomes in career and technical 
education, and rigorously evaluate such innovations'' by carrying out 
one or more of the activities listed in that section. To implement this 
requirement, we propose to require each applicant to identify in its 
grant application which activities it proposes to carry out with grant 
funds during the project period.
    Proposed Requirement: Each applicant must describe how it will use 
Perkins I and M Grant Program funds and also must identify one or more 
of the activities described in section 114(e)(7) of Perkins V that it 
proposes to implement with Perkins I and M grant funds.

Proposed Requirement 3--Rural Communities

    Background: Section 114(e)(5) of Perkins V requires the Department 
to award no less than 25 percent of Perkins I and M funds to eligible 
entities, eligible institutions, and eligible recipients (as defined in 
sections 3(19), (20), and (21) of Perkins V) proposing to fund CTE 
activities that serve rural communities. In order to implement this 
requirement, the Department proposes to require applicants proposing to 
fund CTE activities that serve rural communities to demonstrate, in a 
clear and consistent manner, that the proposed project will serve 
students in rural communities. Accordingly, the Department proposes 
that an applicant identify, by name and locale code, the rural LEA(s) 
that it proposes to serve.
    Proposed Requirement: Each applicant proposing to serve students in 
rural communities must identify, both by name and National Center for 
Education Statistics (NCES) LEA locale code, the rural LEA(s) that it 
proposes to serve in its grant application. Applicants may retrieve 
locale codes from the NCES School District search tool (nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/), where districts can be looked up individually to 
retrieve locale codes.

Proposed Definition

    Background: As in the 2019 NIA, we expect that most of the 
definitions that will be used in future competitions will be statutory 
or from the Education Department General Administrative Regulations 
(EDGAR). We propose to establish the definition for one term, 
``computer science,'' that is neither defined in the program statute or 
applicable regulations, but was used in the 2019 NIA. We propose this 
definition to ensure that this term has a clear and commonly understood 
meaning. This is the same definition for ``computer science'' in the 
Supplemental Priorities.

Proposed Definition

    We propose the following definition for this program. We may apply 
this

[[Page 60121]]

definition in any year in which this program is in effect.
    Computer science means the study of computers and algorithmic 
processes and includes the study of computing principles and theories, 
computational thinking, computer hardware, software design, coding, 
analytics, and computer applications.
    Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a 
tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and 
tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of 
computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, 
securing, and using digital information.
    In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science 
emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving 
to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply 
computation in our digital world.
    Computer science does not include using a computer for everyday 
activities, such as browsing the internet; use of tools like word 
processing, spreadsheets, or presentation software; or using computers 
in the study and exploration of unrelated subjects.

Proposed Selection Criteria

    Background: We propose the following selection criteria for 
evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or more 
of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. The 
proposed selection criteria could be used in combination with any of 
the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 or criteria based on the 
statutory requirements for the Perkins I and M Grant Program in 
accordance with 34 CFR 75.209.
    The proposed selection criteria are consistent with the purposes of 
the Act and its statutory requirements. We believe these criteria would 
be valuable tools for peer reviewers to evaluate the quality of 
applications and how well an applicant's proposed project aligns with 
the purposes of the Perkins I and M Grant Program.
    Proposed selection criterion (a) ``Significance'' would focus on 
the contribution that the proposed project would make in testing new 
CTE practices and strategies to support positive student outcomes. This 
proposed criterion aligns with section 114(e)(1) of Perkins V, the 
statutory purpose of the Perkins I and M Grant Program, which includes 
identifying and supporting innovative strategies and activities to 
improve and modernize CTE and ensuring that workforce skills taught in 
CTE programs align with labor market needs. Proposed selection 
criterion (a) ``Significance'' would encourage applicants to discuss 
their project plans and articulate how the project will meet this goal.
    Proposed selection criterion (b) ``Quality of the Project Design'' 
would focus on the applicant's plan for implementing activities and the 
scope of the project. This criterion would enable reviewers to assess 
the strength of an applicant's plans and the extent to which the 
project addresses the competition's priorities. Under this selection 
criterion, an applicant would describe its explicit plans or proposed 
actions to implement its project and logic model.
    Proposed selection criterion (c) ``Quality of the Management Plan'' 
would focus on how the project will be implemented and managed, 
including key objectives and responsibilities of project staff. Under 
this selection criterion, applicants would discuss commitment and 
resources from partners, including employers, the project's staffing 
plan, and the qualifications of key personnel.
    Proposed selection criterion (d) ``Quality of the Project 
Evaluation'' would focus on another key statutory purpose of the 
Perkins I and M Grant Program from section 114(e)(1) of Perkins V to 
rigorously evaluate the evidence-based innovative strategies and 
activities that grantees are using to modernize and improve CTE 
programs. Additionally, under section 114(e)(8) of Perkins V, grantees 
are required to provide for an independent evaluation of the grant 
activities. This criterion would require applicants to discuss their 
evaluation plans and demonstrate the extent to which the plans are 
well-developed with key questions, and descriptions of the analytical 
approaches planned, with qualitative and quantitative methods and an 
explanation of intended project outcomes.
    Proposed selection criterion (e) ``Support for Students from Rural 
Communities'' would apply to applicants that propose to improve 
education and employment outcomes for students from rural communities. 
Under this proposed selection criterion, the Department would consider 
the degree to which an applicant has demonstrated a plan to improve the 
education and employment outcomes of students from rural communities.

Proposed Selection Criteria

    (a) Significance
    In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses a regional 
or local need that was identified in a comprehensive local needs 
assessment carried out under section 134(c) of Perkins V by a Perkins-
eligible recipient.
    (2) The extent to which the proposed project would implement a new 
and innovative approach to delivering CTE (as defined in section 3(5) 
of Perkins V) as compared with strategies previously implemented by the 
applicant.
    (3) The extent of the expected impact of the project on relevant 
outcomes (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), including the estimated impact of 
the project on student outcomes and the breadth of the project's 
impact, compared with alternative practices or methods of addressing 
similar needs.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that the 
project will serve students who are predominantly from low-income 
families.
    (b) Quality of the Project Design
    In determining the quality of the project design, the Secretary 
considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of 
goals and an explicit plan of action to achieve those goals.
    (2) The extent to which the project goals are clear, complete, and 
coherent, and the extent to which the project activities constitute a 
complete plan aligned to those goals, including the identification of 
potential risks to project success and strategies to mitigate those 
risks.
    (3) The extent to which the applicant will use grant funds to 
address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, 
in the past, from implementing a similar project or strategy.
    (c) Quality of the Management Plan
    In determining the quality of the management plan, the Secretary 
considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the management plan articulates key 
responsibilities for each party involved in the project and also 
articulates well-defined objectives, including the timelines and 
milestones for completion of major project activities, the metrics that 
will be used to assess progress on an ongoing basis, and annual 
performance targets the applicant will use to monitor whether the 
project is achieving its goals.
    (2) The extent of the demonstrated commitment of any partners whose

[[Page 60122]]

participation is critical to the project's long-term success, including 
the extent of any evidence of support from, or specific resources from, 
employers and other stakeholders.
    (3) The adequacy of the project's staffing plan, particularly for 
the first year of the project, including the identification of the 
project director and, in the case of projects with unfilled key 
personnel positions at the beginning of the project, a description of 
how critical work will proceed.
    (4) The extent to which the project director has experience 
managing projects similar in scope to that of the proposed project.
    (d) Quality of the Independent Evaluation
    In determining the quality of the project's independent evaluation, 
the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The clarity and importance of the key questions to be addressed 
by the project's independent evaluation, and the appropriateness of the 
methods for how each question will be addressed.
    (2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit at least annual, periodic assessment of 
progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
    (3) The extent to which the independent evaluation plan includes a 
clear and credible analysis plan and an analytical approach for 
addressing the research questions.
    (4) The extent to which the independent evaluation plan includes a 
clear, well-documented, and rigorous method for measuring 
implementation of the critical features of the project, as well as the 
intended outcomes.
    (5) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the 
key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measurable 
threshold for acceptable implementation.
    (e) Support for Rural Communities
    In determining the extent of the support for rural communities, the 
Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the applicant presents a clear, well-
documented plan for primarily serving students from rural communities.
    (2) The extent to which the applicant proposes a project that will 
improve the education and employment outcomes of students in rural 
communities.

Final Priorities, Requirements, Definition, and Selection Criteria

    We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definition, 
and selection criteria in the Federal Register. We will determine the 
final priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria 
after considering responses to the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definition, and selection criteria and other information available to 
the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing 
additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection 
criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note:  This document does not solicit applications. In any year 
in which we choose to use any of these proposed priorities, 
requirements, definition, 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, it must be determined whether this 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 
result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This 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 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 proposed priorities, requirements, definition, 
and selection criteria 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

[[Page 60123]]

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.
    Summary of Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria 
would not impose significant costs on applicants applying for 
assistance under section 114 of Perkins V. We also believe that the 
benefits of implementing the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definition, and selection criteria justify any associated costs.
    The Department believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definition, and selection criteria would help to ensure that: Grants 
provided under section 114(e) of Perkins V are awarded only for 
allowable, reasonable, and necessary costs; and eligible applicants 
consider carefully in preparing their applications how the grants may 
be used to improve CTE programs and the outcomes of the students who 
enroll in them. The program requirements and related definitions are 
necessary to ensure that taxpayer funds are expended appropriately.
    The Department further believes that the costs imposed on an 
applicant by the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and 
selection criteria would be largely limited to the paperwork burden 
related to preparing the application and that the benefits of preparing 
an application and receiving an award would justify any costs incurred 
by the applicant. The costs of these proposed priorities, requirements, 
definition, and selection criteria would not be a significant burden 
for any eligible applicant.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection 
criteria contain information collection requirements that are approved 
by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006; the proposed priorities, 
requirements, definition, and selection criteria 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, requirements, definition, and selection criteria 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.
    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are school districts and institutions of higher education. We 
believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the proposed 
priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria would be 
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and 
that the benefits of the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, 
and selection criteria would outweigh any costs incurred by the 
applicant.
    Participation in the I and M Grants Program is voluntary. For this 
reason, the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and 
selection criteria would impose no burden on small entities unless they 
applied for funding under the program. We expect that in determining 
whether to apply for program funds, an eligible entity would evaluate 
the requirements 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, requirements, definition, 
and selection criteria 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.
    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.

[[Page 60124]]

    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.

Scott Stump,
Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 2020-18304 Filed 9-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P