[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1709-1714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00453]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0152]


Proposed Priorities, Requirement, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Full-Service Community Schools Program

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

ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes priorities, 
requirement, definitions, and selection criteria under the Full-Service 
Community Schools (FSCS) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.215J. 
The Department is taking this action to support the successful 
implementation of this critical program and build additional evidence 
to share with the field. The Department may use these priorities, 
requirement, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in FY 
2022 and later years.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before February 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``FAQ.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priorities, 
requirement, selection criteria, and definitions, address them to Elson 
Nash, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E246, 
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

[[Page 1710]]

information that they wish to make publicly available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Elson Nash, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E246, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 260-2655. 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: Community schools serve as centers of the 
community, connecting students and families to vital resources that can 
help them thrive. Importantly, community schools expand learning and 
enrichment opportunities for both students and parents alike, and 
promote family and community engagement in education, which ultimately 
can bolster students' success.
    This document reflects full-service community schools program 
improvements based on lessons learned over the last decade, including 
addressing the increased mental and behavioral health needs among 
school community members, to improve program implementation and 
evaluation.
    The community schools field has been successful over the years 
expanding community schools.\1\ Practitioners and policy makers at the 
local, state, and national levels have embraced the community schools 
approach to address critical needs of children, recognizing that 
academic opportunities and success can be impacted by factors such as 
neighborhood poverty, access to health and social services, including 
mental and behavioral health services and supports, and family 
stressors. Evidence-based community school approaches can help mitigate 
the impact of these factors in ways that support student success.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Harkavy, I. (2017). John Dewey and the Community School 
Idea. In L. Benson. Knowledge for Social Change: Bacon, Dewey and 
the Revolutionary Transformation of Research Universities in the 
Twenty-First Century (pp.42-67), Philadelphia, Temple University 
Press.
    \2\ Brookings Institution's Task Force for the Next Generation 
Community Schools (2021). Addressing inequality in education with a 
next generation of community schools: A blueprint for mayors, 
states, and the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through proposed priorities and an enhanced application 
requirement, the Department hopes to encourage applications to include 
a plan to successfully implement the ``pillars of a full-service 
community school'' (as defined in this document). In addition, the 
Department seeks to continuously improve program implementation quality 
at the site level. The Department also seeks to codify and enhance the 
definitions, and selection criteria to coincide with improvements to 
the overall purpose and structure of the FSCS program. Lastly, to 
continue to build the evidence to support program quality and 
improvement, we propose to include a priority that allows for a 
national evaluation of the program.
    We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities, 
requirement, definitions, and selection criteria. To ensure that your 
comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final 
priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection criteria, we urge 
you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement, 
definition, or selection criterion that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of 
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed 
priorities, requirement, definitions, 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 this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. Due to the 
COVID-19 pandemic, the Department buildings are currently not open to 
the public. However, upon reopening, you may also inspect the comments 
in person at 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E246, 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, 
definitions, 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 FSCS program provides support for the 
planning, implementation, and operation of full-service community 
schools that improve the coordination, integration, accessibility, and 
effectiveness of services for children and families, particularly for 
children attending schools with concentrated poverty, including rural 
schools. The FSCS program is authorized under Title IV through 
Community Support for School Success, sections 4621-4623 and 4625(a) of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (ESEA).
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7271-7273, 7275.

Proposed Priorities

    This document contains the following five proposed priorities:
    Proposed Priority 1--Capacity Building and Development Grants;
    Proposed Priority 2--Multi-Local Educational Agency Grants;
    Proposed Priority 3--State Scaling Grants;
    Proposed Priority 4--Participation in the National Evaluation; and
    Proposed Priority 5--Evidence-Based Integrated Student Supports.
    Background: Over the last five years, the FSCS program experienced 
rapid growth as grantees expanded program implementation to multiple 
schools and districts. Grantees adopted varied approaches to size and 
scope, with a range of experiences and outcomes. Those grantees with 
the most success provided clear guidance to the schools and partners on 
program implementation, staff training, support for teachers, and 
continuous improvement. This was particularly true with the 2016 study 
by the Gardner Center \3\ on the implementation of the community school 
approach by the 2014 FSCS grantee Oakland Unified School District. In 
Oakland, across 33 schools, school staff, school leadership, and 
community partners focused on four competencies when addressing the 
needs of students: Comprehensiveness, collaboration, coherence, and 
commitment. The results included reductions in suspensions and chronic 
absenteeism and improved academic engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Fehrer, K., & Leos-Urbel, J. (2016). ``We're One Team'': 
Examining Community School Implementation Strategies in Oakland. 
Education Sciences, 6(4), 26. MDPI AG. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci6030026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed priorities 1 through 3 would allow the Department to award 
grants to projects at different stages of development, from capacity-
building to scaling full- service community schools approaches where 
the community and education leadership are ready to scale. These stages 
represent points of entry at

[[Page 1711]]

the local, district, region, and state level to strategically scale the 
community school approach based on the readiness of the consortium 
applying for the grant.
    Although scaling the approach is important, equally important is 
retaining high quality implementation and fidelity to the approach 
which includes the pillars of full-service community schools. The four 
pillars of full- service community schools (as defined in this notice) 
are integrated student supports, expanded learning opportunities, 
active family and community engagements, and collaborative leadership 
and practices.
    There is some evidence that implementing all pillars of full-
service community schools is associated with a range of positive 
outcomes for students and families.\4\ As the field continues to 
evolve, it is important to expand this body of evidence with 
additional, rigorously designed evaluations. Of the studies that assess 
the effects of community schools using a randomized controlled trial or 
quasi-experimental design, all examined the effects of a single 
community school, the effects of multiple community schools within a 
single city/metropolitan area, or the effects within 1-2 states.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Maier, A., J. Daniel, J. Oakes, and L. Lam. ``Community 
Schools as an Effective School Improvement Strategy: A Review of the 
Evidence.'' Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute, 2017.
    \5\ For example, see:
    Adams, C. (2010). ``Improving Conditions for Learning in High 
Poverty Elementary Schools: Evidence from the Tulsa Area Community 
Schools Initiative (TACSI).'' Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.
    Durham, R.E., and Connoly, F.(2016). ``Baltimore Community 
Schools: Promise & Progress.'' Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Education 
Research Consortium, 2016.
    Somers, M., and Haider, Z. (2017). ``Using Integrated Student 
Support to Keep Kids in School. A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of 
Communities In Schools, New York, NY: MDRC.
    Johnston, W., Engberg, J., Opper, I., Sontag-Padilla, L. and 
Xenakis, L. (2020). ``Illustrating the Promise of Community Schools: 
An Assessment of the Impact of the New York City Community Schools 
Initiative.'' Sponsored by the New York Mayor's Office of Economic 
Opportunity. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
    Olson, L.S.(2014). ``A First Look at Community Schools in 
Baltimore.'' Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Education Research Consortium.
    Somers, M.A, and Haider, Z.(2017). ``Using Integrated Student 
Supports to Keep Kids in School: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of 
Communities in Schools.'' New York: MDRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Key opportunities for next steps include rigorous evaluation of 
community schools across a wide range of cities and states. The 
Department proposes Priority 4 to provide the option to institute the 
first ever national evaluation of the FSCS program.
    The Department proposes Priority 5 to support high quality 
initiative design and implementation. A body of research demonstrates 
that evidence-based integrated student support models positively impact 
students' school progress, attendance, and mathematics achievement.\6\ 
These models offer a process for connecting students to personalized, 
comprehensive services in a systematic manner. Incorporation of a 
proven integrated student support model would enhance the impact of the 
FSCS program on students. Under this proposed priority, we include the 
four tiers of evidence outlined in ESEA, and the Department may choose 
which tier or tiers to use in a notice inviting applications for FSCS 
grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Moore, K.A., Lantos, H., Jones, R., Schindler, A., Belford, 
J., & Sacks, V. (2017). Making the Grade: A Progress Report and Next 
Steps for Integrated Student Supports. Child Trends. 
(childtrends.org). Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., and Lam, L. 
(2017). Community Schools as an Effective School Improvement 
Strategy: A Review of the Evidence. (learningpolicyinstitute.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority 1--Capacity Building and Development Grants. 
Projects that propose to conduct initial development and coordination 
activities that leverage the findings of their needs assessment to 
develop the infrastructure, activities, and partnerships to implement 
and sustain full- service community schools in two or more schools 
through extensive community engagement and gathering data on initial 
outcomes.
    Proposed Priority 2--Multi-Local Educational Agency (LEA) Grants. 
Projects that propose to implement full-service community schools in 
two or more LEAs within the same state.
    Proposed Priority 3--FSCS State Scaling Grants.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DC, HI, and PR may apply for Statewide grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Projects in partnership with an SEA that propose to initiate, 
support, and expand full-service community schools in six or more LEAs 
across the state where there is a commitment to sustain the program 
beyond two years after the term of the grant.
    Proposed Priority 4--Participation in the National Evaluation.
    Projects in which the applicant agrees to:
    (1) Carry out the FSCS grant in a manner consistent with a 
randomized controlled trial evaluation design developed by the 
Department and its national evaluator;
    (2) Propose at least four schools to potentially receive grant 
funding in the national evaluation. The proposed schools can be 
elementary, middle, and/or high schools.
    Note: From among the proposed schools, applicants may designate one 
group of two or more schools that serve the same grade levels as 
``highest need,'' and if the applicant receives a grant, the national 
evaluation will ensure that at least one of the schools in the group 
receives FSCS funding.
    (3) Not currently be fully implementing all four pillars of full-
service community schools (as defined in this notice) in any of the 
schools proposed for the grant;
    (4) Consent to the evaluator's random assignment of approximately 
one-half of the schools proposed by the applicant to receive funding 
and begin implementing the FSCS approach; and the other half of schools 
to not receive funding from any FSCS grant for three years following 
random assignment;
    (5) Not promote or begin using grant funds for the implementation 
of the FSCS approach in any proposed schools until the grantee receives 
notification from the national evaluator about the random assignment of 
its schools to receive FSCS grant funding or not; and
    (6) Cooperate, consistent with applicable privacy requirements, 
with evaluation data collection activities, including: Surveys of 
grantee directors, principals of both groups of proposed schools (those 
randomly assigned to receive grant funding and schools assigned to not 
receive grant funding), and a representative sample of parents/
guardians of students attending the two groups of grantee schools; and 
provision of district administrative records on educators (e.g., 
credentials, experience) and students (e.g., academic assessment 
scores, course taking and credit accumulation, attendance) in the two 
groups of grantee schools. These data collections will be carried out 
at multiple points over the grant period.
    Proposed Priority 5--Evidence-Based Integrated Student Supports.
    Projects that propose adoption of an evidence-based model to 
provide integrated student supports in their implementation at one or 
more of the following tiers:
    (a) Demonstrates a rationale;
    (b) Promising evidence;
    (c) Moderate evidence; or
    (d) Strong evidence.
    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

[[Page 1712]]

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: To enhance the quality of implementation of full-
service community schools the Department proposes that each application 
address the four pillars of full-service community schools. The four 
pillars are: (1) Integrated student supports that address out-of-school 
barriers to learning through partnerships with social and health 
service agencies and providers; (2) expanded and enriched learning time 
and opportunities; (3) active family and community engagement; and (4) 
collaborative leadership and practices that build a culture of 
professional learning, collective trust, and shared responsibility.
    The Department proposes this application requirement to be used in 
conjunction with those set out in Section 4625(a) of the ESEA. The 
proposed application requirement is intended to: (1) Assist applicants 
with creating and clearly presenting elements of high-quality full-
service community schools; (2) emphasize the critical role and direct 
involvement of school partners, including community based 
organizations, families, educators, and staff, in identifying and 
implementing solutions needed to improve educational opportunities and 
academic outcomes; (3) ensure that applicants have a clear knowledge of 
the assets and needs in the schools and communities to be served as 
demonstrated by the applicant's initial needs assessment and plan; and 
(4) communicate to families that the combination of supports, rich 
learning environment and collaboration with school leadership will 
create the best conditions to meet the needs of their child. The 
Department expects that the proposed requirement will not only improve 
the application and review process but also improve program outcomes.
    Through each of the FSCS competitions over the last ten years, the 
program recognized the need for applications to more clearly represent 
information such as presentation of services, demonstration of needs, 
and connection to the classroom. These improvements will help increase 
the likelihood that the proposed project addresses all identified needs 
and connects the services and community assets to the schools. It will 
also help peer reviewers' evaluation of services, partners, and 
collaborations with school leadership.

Proposed Application Requirement

    The Department proposes the following application requirement for 
this program. We may apply this requirement in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    Proposed Application Requirement: An applicant must, in addition to 
providing the information and assurances required by Section 4625(a) of 
the ESEA, provide the following:
    In addressing the application requirements set out in Section 
4625(a) of the ESEA, applicants must address the essential pillars of 
full-service community schools (as defined in this notice).
    Projects must describe the pillars of full-service community 
schools that they have in place or how they will establish these 
pillars, or how they will implement these supports with partners, 
including community-based organization, and collaborating with school 
leadership and staff.

Proposed Definitions

    Background: To ensure a common understanding of the proposed 
priorities, requirement, and selection criteria, we propose the 
following definitions that are critical to the policy and statutory 
purposes of the FSCS program. We propose these definitions to clarify 
expectations for eligible entities applying for FSCS program grants and 
to ensure that the review process for applications for FSCS grants 
remains as transparent as possible.
    Proposed Definitions: The Department 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.
    Pillars of Full-Service Community Schools means all of the 
following:
    (A) Integrated student supports at a community school that provide 
in- and out-of-school support for students, address well-being, and 
address out-of-school barriers to learning through partnerships with 
social and health service agencies, including mental and behavioral 
health agencies and providers, and coordinated by a community school 
coordinator, which may include--
    (i) Medical, dental, vision care, and mental and behavioral health 
services, including mental health literacy for students and staff; and
    (ii) Individuals to assist with housing, transportation, nutrition, 
citizenship preparation, or criminal justice issues and other services.
    (B) Expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities, through 
evidence-based strategies, including before-school, after-school, 
during-school, weekend, and summer programs that provide additional 
academic instruction, individualized academic support, enrichment 
activities, or learning opportunities, for students at a community 
school that--
    (i) May emphasize real-world project based learning in which 
students can apply their learning to contexts that are relevant and 
engaging; and
    (ii) May include art, music, drama, creative writing, hands-on 
experience with engineering or science (including computer science), 
career and technical education, tutoring that is aligned with classroom 
success and homework help, and recreational programs that enhance and 
are consistent with the school's curriculum.
    (C) Active family and community engagement that--
    (i) Brings parents and families of students at the community school 
and in the community into the school as partners in students' 
education, including meaningfully involving parents and families in the 
community school's decision-making processes;
    (ii) Makes the community school a hub for services, activities, and 
programs, for students, families, and members of the neighborhood that 
the community school serves;
    (iii) Provides adults with desired educational opportunities; and
    (iv) Provides centralized supports for families and communities in 
community schools, which may include English as a second language 
classes, citizenship preparation, computer skills, art, housing 
assistance, child abuse and neglect prevention supports, health and 
mental health literacy programs, digital literacy training, or other 
programs that bring community members into a school building for 
meetings, events, or programming.
    (D) Collaborative leadership and practices that build a culture of 
professional learning, collective trust, and shared responsibility for 
each community school using strategies that--
    (i) Shall, at a minimum, include a school-based leadership team, a 
community school coordinator, and a community-wide leadership team; and

[[Page 1713]]

    (ii) May include other leadership or governance teams, community 
school steering committees, or other community coalitions, educator 
learning communities, and other staff to manage the multiple, complex 
joint work of school and community organizations.
    Broadly representative consortium means stakeholders representing 
broad groups of people working together for the best interest of 
children; such stakeholders may include, but are not limited to 
schools, nonprofits, government, philanthropy, and the business 
community.
    History of effectiveness means an eligible entity demonstrating the 
ability to successfully implement programs and policies. Such programs 
and policies must include but shall not be limited to successfully 
implementing with other organizations grants, policies, and programs 
for students from high need schools (as defined in ESEA section 2221).

Proposed Selection Criteria

    Background: Since the original FSCS grant competition in FY 2008, 
the Department has held four additional competitions (FY 2010, 2014, 
2018, and 2019). Our experience with administering these competitions, 
including feedback from peer reviewers, applicants, funded grantees, 
and experts, demonstrates the need to use program-specific selection 
criteria to evaluate specific program elements.
    Proposed Selection Criteria: The Department proposes 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. In the notice inviting applications or the 
application package or both we will announce the maximum possible 
points assigned to each criterion.
    (a) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects 
relevant and evidence-based findings from existing literature, and 
includes a high-quality plan for project implementation integrating the 
four pillars of full-service community schools and the use of 
appropriate evaluation methods to ensure successful achievement of 
project objectives.
    (b) The extent to which the applicant will ensure that a diversity 
of perspectives is brought to bear in the design and operation of the 
proposed project, including those of families, educators and staff, 
beneficiaries of services, school leadership, and community leadership.
    (c) The extent to which the grantee has plans for a full-time 
coordinator at each school, includes a plan to sustain the position 
beyond the grant period, and a description of how this position will 
serve to integrate, coordinate, and deliver pipeline services at each 
school.
    (d) The extent to which the grantee has a consortium broadly 
representative of community stakeholders and needs.
    (e) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a history of 
effectiveness.
    Final Priority, Requirement, Definitions and Selection Criteria: We 
will announce the final priorities, requirement, definitions, and 
selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will 
determine the final priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection 
criteria after considering responses to this document and other 
information available to the Department. This document does not 
preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable 
rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use these priorities, requirement, definitions, and 
selection criteria, we invite applications through a notice in the 
Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and 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 significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only 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 the proposed priorities, requirement, 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 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

[[Page 1714]]

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

    The proposed priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection 
criteria contain information collection requirements that are approved 
by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006; the proposed priorities, 
requirement, definitions, and selection criteria do not affect the 
currently approved data collection.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define 
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently 
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and 
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are 
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated 
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are 
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government 
overseeing a population below 50,000.
    The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would 
affect are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under 
State law; institutions of higher education; public or private 
nonprofit organizations; and Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations. We 
believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the proposed 
priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection criteria would be 
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and 
that the benefits of these proposed priorities, requirement, 
definitions, and selection criteria would outweigh any costs incurred 
by the applicant.
    Participation in the FSCS program is voluntary. For this reason, 
the proposed priorities, requirement, definitions, 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 FSCS 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 an 
FSCS program grant. An eligible entity will probably apply only if it 
determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an 
application.
    We believe that the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
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 small eligible 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: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an 
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an 
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text 
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc, or another accessible format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 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.

Ian Rosenblum,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs, delegated the 
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2022-00453 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P